There is a thread discussing Internal vs. External fighting styles and who would win. The definition of Internal was anything Taoist.
My opinion is that Buddhists had internal as did Taoists. In the Kung Fu community there is two realities:
If you have internal, you know it.
Everyone thinks they have internal.
So here is the question,
How do you define Internal vs External??
Here’s something from Buddha on buddha-nature:
"If a king is plagued by bandits,he must find out where their camp is before he can attack them. So, when a man is beset by worldly passions, he should first ascertain their origins.
"when a man is in a house and opens his eyes, he will first notice the interior of the room and only later will he see the view outside the windows. In like manner we can not have the eye notice external things before there is recognition by the eye of the things in the house.
"if there is a mind within the body, it ought first know the things inside the body; but generally people are interested in external things and seem to know or care little for the things within the body.
“How do you define Internal vs External??”
Internal–addressing qi with breathing.
External–addressing qi with dynamic tension.
Very good. Some such-ish.
External: you have to think about it.
Internal: it just is.
A good warrior is not bellicose,
A good fighter does not anger,
A good conqueror does not contest his enemy,
One who is good at using others puts himself below them.
This is called “Integrity without competition,”
This is called “using others,”
This is called “parity with heaven,”
-the pinnacle of the ancients
-Tao Te Ching
Hey there
People took this further in the Neijia area,but I sort of feel that what holds a lot of people back is these definations,if people hadn’t coined these pharses and concertrated on them so much we would have ended up with styles which just moved differently.
Like someone commented many arts in the high end require movement and power base that follows principles within some of the more famous internal arts.
At one stage the west considered at most 3 arts to be internal,now (through exposure and education)I could list at least 10 including some JMA.
I really feel this is more about mistranslation and misinterpartation,previously we jugded internal by the bench mark of Tai ji quan,when really this was only one interpartation of a compex power dynamic.
This would require explanation of what everyone thinks defines “internal power base” etc etc etc
The non-usage of muscular force or bone alignment to motivate movement.
Try this…
next time a new student enrolls at your club, watch what they do when they are instructed in their fundamentals.
watch how they are shown by the instructor or the school master.
see how the teacher does it? see how they do it?
That is one glaring instance of when a movement is internal to the practitioner.
one definition of internal. The student(s) at early times in training are utterly external in their understanding and playing of basics and form.
With time, greater understanding concerning the physics of your own body comes and you utilize this knowledge without having to think about it.
another small example to differentiate.
a really good example is food.
When uneaten, it is external to you, when you eat it, it transforms to energy and sustains you. It is inyternalized.
When you learn to punch, the knowledge of how is the food, The refinement of the ability to put power into the punch and execute it correctly is the transformed knowledge that you have internalized.
There are no cut and dried definitions of internal or external. To me, it’s more of a point of “being able” than intellectually defining.
As for “taoist” or “buddhist”, these distinctions are religio-philosophical in nature and have whole other paths of connectivity in the chinese culture that really has little to do with martial arts. but that’s another story.
Buddhism in china is as “internal” to China as Buddhism in India.
The religion and philosophy were in existance long before the whole connection between them and shaolin temple martial arts
peace
You may want to read this article by Tim Cartmell at: http://www.shenwu.com/Internal_VS_External.htm
It talks about the confusion between internal vs. external training/fighting.
KG
Tim Cartmell knows what he’s talking about, IMO. I may not agree with his statement that there’s definitely a clear-cut distinction between all external styles and the internal styles, but in general I think his points in that article were very accurate, or at least have been in accord with my training.
What confusion? Those who know it may not be able to express it in words well but they know it.
No amount of words will help one to know it. It’s very different.
if there is any confusion it may be because of mistaking a level of achievement as the only possible level there is.
it may be better and esier to understand what it is not, then what it is. i think more people will have had exprience with this then the other way around.
Kung Lek is correct.
Internal & external
it’s useless looking at kung fu along these lines. “internal: is just is” expalins nothing. just as there is no way something can move without muscular interaction.
we now have better ways then they had in te past of understanding bio-mechanics. i would suggest you put your styles under the scientific microscope to determine their underlying concepts. Sifus who oppose to this are frauds - which are those who hide a dubious product under a veil of mystic dogma - chi comes to mind and are only interested in your monthly class fee.
These sifus frequently incorporste useless activities such as chi qung or lion dance or perhaps allow students to do chores for him or her.
There is one truth in kung fu and a truth in many aspects of human endeavour. In the market place let the buyer beware. Ever heard of Sifu Adam Smith?
Thanks Bamboo Leaf. We’re thinking along the same lines.
Extrodinaire, practice. No amount of explaination will give you understanding without experience. Be as open minded as you can without your brains falling out. Hint- I’ve never met anyone who’s brains have fallen out from openmindedness.
Don’t make me use the four year old and the light switch analogy again. I’ll turn this car around!
External: Both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, consciously attuned to and exhilarated by the flow of the freeway.
Internal: Jamming out to your tunes while smiling at the weather, parking your car and honestly not remembering the actual act of driving.
Both valid experiences, both utilize the same parameters (car, traffic, time, speed, etc), both have same end result (arrive at the destination).
"it’s useless looking at kung fu along these lines. “internal: is just is” expalins nothing. just as there is no way something can move without muscular interaction. "
You are correct that you cannot move without muscular interation. Actually, I’m not exactly sure what it was about my comment that made you say that.
What I am saying is that external execution of techniques requires CONCIOUS effort…you must visualize and try to imitate certain movements.
Internal execution of techniques does not require such effort. The technique manfest as a product of your will and deep, subconious patterns.
Wow Jas! You used an automotive analogy. For some odd reason my favorite way to learn. (Perhaps because I get it.) For this I am elevating you in my mind to the rank of Mentor. ( That special catagory I reserve for people able to recreate in me an effect I like to call “Dawn at Marblehead”.)
Bamboo Leaf, how did you get your internal abilities? (I am assuming you have them based on your response)
Ego_Ext… Based on the responses I am getting, I’d say you’re right 95% of the time. There is a lot of fraud out there.
The idea of internal/external has as many definitions as those who try to define it.
Yes, BSH, lots of frauds out there. :rolleyes: As this thread was given basis in Buddhist and Taoist “views,” the two are worthy of their own representation of the idea/premise you started out from.
That being the case, the Buddhist view might point to the mind being the limiting factor in one’s perception of what really is “external”
The Taoist view is that one doesn’t compete with outside forces in order to prevail over them (not “contesting the enemy”). Tai Chi is based on the exploitation of the opponent’s force. Putting oneself beneath the other. Using the other. Equanimity and reticence (not being “bellicose or quick to anger”/mentally and emotionally balanced). The Middle Path (“parity with heaven”).
Dismissing the sage words of the masters as mystical dogma is just a way to dismiss an idea without one actually having to formulate their own understanding (read: think for themself). The message in either passage is really quite obvious though. Not everyone is so quick to spoon-feed, as some would like to be spoon-fed. 
Nevertheless, what Kung Lek wrote.
There are no cut and dried definitions of internal or external. To me, it’s more of a point of “being able” than intellectually defining.
“Bamboo Leaf, how did you get your internal abilities? (I am assuming you have them based on your response)”
Wow talk about questions. The short answer would be that I gave up, after trying many things for many yrs, I gave up all that I thought I knew and really started listening and feeling what was being done and asked with out expectations or preconceived ideas.
Is this it? No
Is this it? No
Is this it? No
Damm I give up, “yes that’s it”
I don’t know or claim any great ability beyond some small ability to relax. All things that I post on are from me, and things that I have found to be true as I understand them at this time.
good thread many good thoughts