All have internal and external elements

[Xue Sheng]

I put this here because even though it was said by one of those famous Taijiquan masters of old it does apply to all CMA styles. I tend to agree with it but I was wondering what others thought. I will post who said it later since I do feel that at times if people know who says things like this it changes what they might otherwise have said. If you do know who said it I would appreciate it if you would not post it here. If you need to let me know the please PM me.

Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
progressing to internal

The more I train and the more I read the more I am really beginning to believe that the whole internal/external thing is a prefabrication that appeared more as political statement than an actual division in CMA and it sure did catch on for one reason or another. But then that is just me and my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

 

[bostonbomber]

I completely agree. Arts regarded as internal or external are simply different means to the same end. At the highest level all styles of martial arts must contain both internal and external elements.

 

[SL4Drew]

The term 'internal' can be a slippery one. I think as long as the art has some vehicle for teaching the mind-body connection, I'd probably lump the art in as internal.

SL4 Kenpo is not strictly a CMA, but at least for us beginners from the start learn to use certain movements (anatomical indexes) to begin to foster that connection. On a purely physical level, an advanced student can 'move less' but achieve the same result as if executing the bigger movement. This method I would say could be characterized as external riding the theshold of internal.

That was my long way of agreeing with the notion that everything should have both, and that beginners begin with an 'external' focus.

 

[oxy]

The more I train and the more I read the more I am really beginning to believe that the whole internal/external thing is a prefabrication that appeared more as political statement than an actual division in CMA and it sure did catch on for one reason or another.

Every time I see the internal external division being used, it's always been used to separate "MY" art from "OTHERS".

What's different about "mine"? Well it's more "internal" than everyone else's. It goes to 11...

On the training aspect:

I think it's a given that everyone starts off external, but I think it would be a mistake to keep them there for "years" before progressing them to internal stuff. For one thing, I think teaching students to visualize what they're doing as an "internal" training aspect that should be developed straight off the bat.

 

[marlon]

i guess it depends on how one defines internal and external. The way an internal art approaches things is very different from the external arts, by some definition. Beginning with the external is indeed for building strength and focusing on body aligment in many instances and using more gross movement so it is natural that most arts begin this way. Most arts move to somethign more refined, but not all. Then again many internal arts are not only focused on self defense, either
Then again, i am a novice in these areas
Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[oxy]

i guess it depends on how one defines internal and external. The way an internal art approaches things is very different from the external arts, by some definition.

That's true, but I think that's part of why it seems more like a political statement. Everyone basically uses a definition of internal and external that benefits their style.

I think an important thing to remember is that when people create martial arts (ie, before the modern McDojo era) they didn't think "I'm going to make an *ternal style". I would think most of them would create a style out of methods what they found out works better than others. I would say this is why "external" and "internal" aspects are in all arts, at different proportions of course, because methods that work are those that work regardless of whether its in or ex ternal.

 

[marlon]

That's true, but I think that's part of why it seems more like a political statement. Everyone basically uses a definition of internal and external that benefits their style.

I think an important thing to remember is that when people create martial arts (ie, before the modern McDojo era) they didn't think "I'm going to make an *ternal style". I would think most of them would create a style out of methods what they found out works better than others. I would say this is why "external" and "internal" aspects are in all arts, at different proportions of course, because methods that work are those that work regardless of whether its in or ex ternal.

good points. when i first started learning kempo i was told that it moved from the external to internal..then my teacher left and it changed to it moved from the karate to the kung fu....then i started getting blank stares when i asked about internal training. So i went outside of kempo to find what i was initially promised. It is a long and often confusing journey but i am getting there....and , low and behold, someone i consider a ken/mpo genius and a true martial artist tells me that kenpo has internal stuff and true kenpo is an internal art...and then begins to explain to me what all of it means...I am loving it. So any kempo i teach will always have then goal of using the principles of an "internal" art which i describe sometimes as being to lazy and not wanting to fight to make things work ! And it works best this way! imho

respectfully,
Marlon

 

[oxy]

"internal" art which i describe sometimes as being to lazy and not wanting to fight to make things work ! And it works best this way! imho

I actually quite like this description of "internal". It's like saying I can defeat you without spending effort so your best bet is probably just to negotiate a truce.

 

[clfsean]

I've never seen a pure internal or pure external art. You can't have one without the other. You just can't.

When I was in China, I met several practitioners in different parts of the country all doing different things. They all referred to what they did as wushu. No wai jia or nei jia. Wushu. Pure and simple. Wushu... martial arts. Granted they also didn't do the PRC competition stuff.

When I got back & got to know the head of the Hangzhou University wuhsu team (who was here in ATL for a year), he called everything he did wushu when speaking in generalities but when he talked specifics, it was only styles or names, not wai/nei jia.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This whole division of internal and external as well as the whole Zhang Sanfeng legend seems to appear and in the case of the Zhang Sanfeng legend picks up steam around 1669 with the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan, Which is really more a political statement against the Qing than a factual historic account of ones training and background.

However today the politics are of it are more along the lines with many using "internal style" as a badge of superiority by saying they train an internal style and thereby making themselves being superior (in their minds) to any one who trains a lowly external style. Not all but many and in some cases, IMO, it is to make up for a lack somewhere else in their chosen style and that generally equates to a lack of actual training, particularly tui shou, applications, 2 person sets and sparring.

All CMA styles train Nei Jia and Wei Jia and as clfsean already said just about everywhere in China it is Wushu not Kung Fu not Nei jia or Wei jia just Wushu, unless of course you get into specific styles then it is Taiji, Changquan, Yiquan, Wing Chun, etc. But this division did come from China and to some extent from people like Sun Lutang. But with that said I have no doubt that Sun Lutang was the real deal, he was also born after the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan was written.

Sun Lutang is not the one I quoted in my original post by the way.

 

[oxy]

However today the politics are of it are more along the lines with many using "internal style" as a badge of superiority by saying they train an internal style and thereby making themselves being superior (in their minds) to any one who trains a lowly external style.

You'd probably have noticed other such political divisions of varying similarity:

1) Uses the opponent's force against them
2) Scientific
3) Uses mechanics
4) Uses physics
5) Older
6) More secret
7) Uses what works
8) More tested
9) Circular moves
10) Linear moves
11) The list actually went to 11. I'm sure others can list more.

But, yeah, they're basically all related categorizations to make it seem other styles are lacking when in fact most of these categorizations are quite widespread.

 

[pete]

There IS a difference in internal vs external methods, and to the extent that those methods are practices... a difference in internal vs external martial arts.

Rather than generalizing, I'll toss out one (of several) differences:

1. Pre-programmed reflexive action vs Full Conscious Thought.

If you are practicing rote drills to build speed and 'muscle memory' so that you can REACT to a stimulus with a series of prescribed actions... you are likely to be practicing an EXTERNAL method.

Internal arts will develop consciousness / awareness through sensitivity drills and body method exercises, where the RESPONSE will be somewhat more extemporaneous, yet within the principles of the style.

Generally, the EXTERNAL fighter using a SEE-DO is intially faster and more effective that the INTERNAL counterpart using a SEE-THINK-DO... but in time the internal fighter will reduce the gaps between SEE & THINK and between THINK & DO, and use this to his advantage. Being able to change quickly to multiple stimulii while the external fighter is stuck in a gap of consciousness carrying out an extended series of reflexive actions.

This is why Meditation, Qigong, and Sensitivity drills (Push Hands, Rou Shou, etc) are integral parts of the INTERAL arts, while Repitition, Conditioning, and Hand Speed are characteristic of EXTERNAL methods.

This is ONE... there are MORE... let's see where this discussion takes us.

Pete

 

[Xue Sheng]

There IS a difference in internal vs external methods, and to the extent that those methods are practices... a difference in internal vs external martial arts.

Rather than generalizing, I'll toss out one (of several) differences:

1. Pre-programmed reflexive action vs Full Conscious Thought.

If you are practicing rote drills to build speed and 'muscle memory' so that you can REACT to a stimulus with a series of prescribed actions... you are likely to be practicing an EXTERNAL method.

Internal arts will develop consciousness / awareness through sensitivity drills and body method exercises, where the RESPONSE will be somewhat more extemporaneous, yet within the principles of the style.

Generally, the EXTERNAL fighter using a SEE-DO is intially faster and more effective that the INTERNAL counterpart using a SEE-THINK-DO... but in time the internal fighter will reduce the gaps between SEE & THINK and between THINK & DO, and use this to his advantage. Being able to change quickly to multiple stimulii while the external fighter is stuck in a gap of consciousness carrying out an extended series of reflexive actions.

This is why Meditation, Qigong, and Sensitivity drills (Push Hands, Rou Shou, etc) are integral parts of the INTERAL arts, while Repitition, Conditioning, and Hand Speed are characteristic of EXTERNAL methods.

This is ONE... there are MORE... let's see where this discussion takes us.

Pete

I may regret this but I have eliminated my ignore list today so lets us actually see where this discussion does takes us.

No one is saying, or at least I am not saying, that there is not a difference in training between say Taijiquan and Chanqquan or a difference between training Taijiquan and Xingyiquan or a difference between training Chen style Taijiquan and Yang Taijiquan, or Wing Chun and Tong Bei or White crane and Hung ga, there is a difference. However just about all CMA styles have some sort of Qigong and Sensitivity Drills (Tuishou – push hands) even Modern Police/Military Sanda has Tuishou (but not Qigong). I am not sure however how you are defining meditation as it applies to this, to me when talking CMA meditation falls under Qigong.

The quote….

Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
progressing to internal

…is saying, at least to me, that all CMA styles have internal and external and that all CMA styles start with external training and that the division is not all that important.

However the terminology internal external is newer than some of the styles we now called internal and external styles. The terminology did not exist when Yue Fei was around, the legendary creator of Xingyiquan and a lot of other arts and those claims are very much in question so that really doesn’t matter. But the terminology did not exist when the first documented use of Xingyiquan appeared as done by Ji Jike and it was not around when Chen Wangting came up with Chen style either. It was not around when many styles we now call “external” came into existence either but some of those appeared prior to Xingyiquan and Taijiquan so one could argue there was no need for the labels I suppose. Internal and external first appear in 1669 with the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (Note: Zhang Sanfeng appears before that but the references do not agree as to the dates and it is not in relation to taiji but in the Epitaph he is associated with an internal style and again not taijiquan)

I am however saying that I feel the separation into external styles and internal styles is not as important as many make it and it originated in a political statement against the rulers of China at the time, who were, the Qing. I am saying that Chen Wangting and Ji Jike likely did not say they were teaching or training an internal style. Likely they were teaching/training what they called Wushu or Chen Taijiquan and Xingyiquan. I am also saying that many, not all, hide behind the term “Internal” in order to make up for lack of training, give themselves a false sense of security and to give them a sense of superiority over other styles that have been labeled as external, but then this is not only found in “internal” styles either.

I guess I could also so say that, IMO, just because someone “properly” trains an “internal” style does not automatically make them any better a fighter or martial artist than someone that “properly” trains an “external” style. And that the label internal/external is just that a label for categorization nothing more. Yes Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, Taijiquan and likely Yiquan/Dachengquan are all labeled internal. However I am not sure if Wang Xiangzhai would have labeled it so and I doubt that Ji Jike or Chen Wangting would have labeled their styles as such either. I do not think that calling something “internal” makes it any better or worse than a style labeled “external” and when they first appeared on the scene they were likely not labeled internal at all.

To your “SEE-DO” “SEE-THINK-DO” I am not sure I fully agree with the terminology in application since I feel the idea of training all CMA styles is to make it automatic (pre-programmed) but it could, IMO, I suppose be applied to training but then I would think that it would then also be necessary to “see-think-do” in the early stages of any CMA training be it internal or external and the later stages in application I guess could be “see-do” but again, to me, that would apply to both internal and external. I might say that an external style is more likely to react to what it sees where an internal style is more likely to react to what it feels. But this is just my opinion of what you are saying and I am not trying to argue the point at all. However I did say something that might be considered similar or at least speaks to the differences in training in another post about Xingyi and Taiji which was along the lines of Xingyi is more attack/defend where taiji is more defend/attack. Also I have been told as well as read that “internal” styles go from internal to external and “external” styles go form external to internal too. However my experience has been the internals that I train have gone external to internal but then that is me and not everyone will be the same. I recently read an article about Yiquan that was interesting that separated this into external styles training depending on muscle fibers that are ‘fast twitch fiber’ while internal trains to use ‘slow twitch fibers’. The article also talked about ‘internal’ styles depending more on core muscle groups. I felt it was interesting enough to look into further so I am.

However I do agree that training Taijiquan is different than training something like Changquan that is for sure but they are all, in Chinese, Wushu and they all have Nei Jia and Wei Jia but I am willing to say that some may train more Nie Jia than others and some may train more Wei Jia than others but they are all effective and being “internal” does not make it better. And even though the labels internal and external are not as ancient as many believe they are used in the west and likely will go on being used. And looking back over what I just wrote the label sure does make it easier to discuss.

But I just find it interesting when I find quotes from past Taiji masters that say things like this

Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
progressing to internal

 

[pete]

I think the whole conversation could be more productive if we, at least initially, recognize by definition those things that differentiate internal from external, rather than making qualitative statements regarding which is ‘better’. I listed one difference in my last post and will provide additional points later, based on the direction of the discussion. I will refrain from which is better, as many other factors need to be considered to make that claim. We can get their later, but first let’s establish the differences in internal and external training methods.


I also set forth the Reflexive Reaction vs Conscious Response difference as a training method. It is quite possible to train an internal art using external methods and vice-verse… but, rhetorically speaking, if you are training an internal art with more external methods than internal, what is it that are you actually doing?

My experience has been to learn internal methods from the start and refine them. My teacher says the internal supports the external while the external protects the internal. This shows that there is a balance, however the training methods are different.

Again, back to the reflex vs thought differentiation, it is characteristic of external styles to define a prescribed sequence of actions against a specific attack. Those extended sequences are drilled in repetition after repetition until they can be performed quickly and repeatably. The idea is to supporess conscious thought, as that would slow down the action. The method says no thought, no mercy, no regret. Other training methods are used in conjunction with this to be fast and effective.

The internal method will avoid a catalogue of prescribed actions for every possible attack scenario. Rather, it will define an approach to deal with whatever comes your way, using principles, characteristic methods of application, and mental awareness/clarity. This is initially more difficult, and in early stages of training less than effective… however, as the tai chi principle goes, To Win You Must First Lose… The internal fighter will ‘lose’ a lot while training in order to develop their art.

Xingyi is more attack/defend where taiji is more defend/attack

This may be tangential, but… Xingyi will defend through its attack, and Tai Chi will attack through its defense, while Bagua changes back and forth… may be the same as you are saying, but this takes out the time element of sequential actions.

I may regret this but I have eliminated my ignore list today so...

Don't hate yourself in the morning big fella...


pete

 

[Xue Sheng]

First I feel this whole conversatoin from this pointis actually another thread realted to but not exactly the point of the original post which was the quote and how people felt about it agree or disagree

I think the whole conversation could be more productive if we, at least initially, recognize by definition those things that differentiate internal from external, rather than making qualitative statements regarding which is ‘better’. I listed one difference in my last post and will provide additional points later, based on the direction of the discussion. I will refrain from which is better, as many other factors need to be considered to make that claim. We can get their later, but first let’s establish the differences in internal and external training methods.

I never said anything was better I said they were the same so unless you are attempting to put forth one is better than the other, and I do not think you are so we already agree

I also set forth the Reflexive Reaction vs Conscious Response difference as a training method. It is quite possible to train an internal art using external methods and vice-verse… but, rhetorically speaking, if you are training an internal art with more external methods than internal, what is it that are you actually doing?

No one starts training a form internally they always start externallyt since it is highly unlikey a beginner does not understand the internal and if one thinks they can start internally right of the bat then I put forth they do not understand internall training and are only fooling themselves.

My experience has been to learn internal methods from the start and refine them. My teacher says the internal supports the external while the external protects the internal. This shows that there is a balance, however the training methods are different.

Again I do beleive one can start training internal method form the start but they are not practicing form or applications internally form the start that takes time.

Again, back to the reflex vs thought differentiation, it is characteristic of external styles to define a prescribed sequence of actions against a specific attack. Those extended sequences are drilled in repetition after repetition until they can be performed quickly and repeatably. The idea is to supporess conscious thought, as that would slow down the action. The method says no thought, no mercy, no regret. Other training methods are used in conjunction with this to be fast and effective.

The internal method will avoid a catalogue of prescribed actions for every possible attack scenario. Rather, it will define an approach to deal with whatever comes your way, using principles, characteristic methods of application, and mental awareness/clarity. This is initially more difficult, and in early stages of training less than effective… however, as the tai chi principle goes, To Win You Must First Lose… The internal fighter will ‘lose’ a lot while training in order to develop their art.

But yet how is it possible to do any of what you are saying internal does without repitition. But as I have said in the past many times it takes a long time and a lot of training to apply something like taiji as it was meant to be applied and part of that training envolves repitition of form.

And "external CMA styles do not try and define every possible attack scenario it is possible other styles like kempo might but I have not trained kempo so I would not know. And external CMA styles do train Tuishou and have qigong as I previously said so they are indeed trainig for no thought, as are internals, but they are not training for every possible attack scenario.

This may be tangential, but… Xingyi will defend through its attack, and Tai Chi will attack through its defense, while Bagua changes back and forth… may be the same as you are saying, but this takes out the time element of sequential actions.

The time elemant to me is the time it takes to train this to make it work properly.

Don't hate yourself in the morning big fella...

I just might, only time will tell

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just to wrap this up, the person that said this

Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
progressing to internal

was Chen Fa Ke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Fake

 

[pete]

for purposes of discussion and to add to defining the differences between Internal and External methods,
1. pre-programmed reflexive action vs continuous conscious thought (already discussed)
2. acting to control vs following the lead of your opponent to receive control.

this is easily understood by comparing internal methods of chin na vs external jujitsu locks. the physical manipulations are the same, however the internal artist will not act to apply the lock on his opponent. Rather he will follow and redirect so that anything the opponent does puts him more and more into trouble, thus the internal fighter receives control.

pete.

 

[mograph]

Excellent discussion.

If I may interrupt, it relates to something I just read which laments our need to belong to a "tribe" and adopt its simplistic beliefs, whether political, religious, or ... martial. The writer wrote that religion is like a big buffet on an exotic vacation. Try everything and keep what you like, adapting your beliefs to suit.

Left/right, Christian/Jewish/Muslim, internal/external ... things are more complex than those distinctions imply.

 

[oxy]

for purposes of discussion and to add to defining the differences between Internal and External methods,
1. pre-programmed reflexive action vs continuous conscious thought (already discussed)
2. acting to control vs following the lead of your opponent to receive control.

this is easily understood by comparing internal methods of chin na vs external jujitsu locks. the physical manipulations are the same, however the internal artist will not act to apply the lock on his opponent. Rather he will follow and redirect so that anything the opponent does puts him more and more into trouble, thus the internal fighter receives control.

pete.

I personally don't see how any method can or has been without those two aspects you described when done properly.

For example, your Internal vs Jiu Jitsu comparison isn't as clear cut as you make it. There are many methods in both categories that will make your comparison equally valid if you switched the two around in your example.

 

[marlon]

haha. i just recalled a quote from CMC where he says that internal means the art came from inside the chinese mind and external means that it came from outside the chinese mind...or China i guess would be more accurate. simple enough.

Respectfully,
Marlon