Internal and External

[Xue Sheng]

I was not sure exactly where to post this, but since the separation between Internal and External martial arts seems to be a Chinese martial arts issue I figured here was good a place as any.

I came across these definitions in an old book of mine and I was wondering how others felt about them or if they were complete, needed something or were just plain wrong.

External – Stressed the regulation of breath, training of bones and muscles, ability to advance and retreat, and unity of hard and soft

Internal – Emphasized training of bones and muscles, exercise of ch’i-kung (Qi Gong) subduing the offensive by stillness, and had the aim of defeating the enemy the instant he attacked

[Asian Martial Arts – Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith]

 

[Flying Crane]

I was not sure exactly where to post this, but since the separation between Internal and External martial arts seems to be a Chinese martial arts issue I figured here was good a place as any.

I came across these definitions in an old book of mine and I was wondering how others felt about them or if they were complete, needed something or were just plain wrong.

External – Stressed the regulation of breath, training of bones and muscles, ability to advance and retreat, and unity of hard and soft

Internal – Emphasized training of bones and muscles, exercise of ch’i-kung (Qi Gong) subduing the offensive by stillness, and had the aim of defeating the enemy the instant he attacked

[Asian Martial Arts – Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith]

To me, these definitions combine to describe ANY Chinese art, and probably most other arts as well. The only real difference I would say is the Internal arts place a higher level of focus on qi gong training.

 

[Xue Sheng]

To me, these definitions combine to describe ANY Chinese art, and probably most other arts as well. The only real difference I would say is the Internal arts place a higher level of focus on qi gong training.

I will say from what I understand they all end up the same in the end.

The saying it internal goes to external and external goes to internal.

I am not sure which style of Bagua it was/is but one of them use to, as all bagua styles, start out with internal training. However there was an external form that was taught only to advanced students.

And this line caught my eye from the definition of internal "and had the aim of defeating the enemy the instant he attacked" This is basically what Xingyi is all about from what I understand of it.

Not having that much training in Chinese external styles I am not if the definition that I found is complete.

And I do know the internals do but a whole lot of emphasis on Qi training, lots and lots of Qi training. But I really do not know how much Qi is trained in external styles.

 

[Flying Crane]

And this line caught my eye from the definition of internal "and had the aim of defeating the enemy the instant he attacked" This is basically what Xingyi is all about from what I understand of it.

But I really do not know how much Qi is trained in external styles.

Again, I think ANY style would have the aim of defeating the enemy the instant he attacked. It is not alway possible or reasonable to expect it to happen this way given the particular circumstances, but that would be the ultimate aim.

In my own experience, I tend to not train much qi gong, but that is my choice. I am still young enough to be able to focus primarily on the external side of the external arts, and that is what I enjoy most so that is what I do. As I get older and perhaps reach a point where I can no longer do the external as well, then I suspect my focus will shift more to the internal. In the meantime, I also practice tai chi, but this is more as a side interest from the external arts. Again, I suspect that as I get older I will eventually begin to shift more toward Tai Chi.

I think qi gong in the external arts is different from the internal arts. The external arts, i think, 'force' the chi a bit more openly, and is something that I refer to as "hard qi". This can be seen in arts like Hung Gar, and Wing Chun that use dynamic tension exercises in the forms to build power. But to call these exercises 'dynamic tension' is overly simplistic and really not an accurate description because it is not just about flexing the muscles and progressing slowly through the movements. Rather, the body's power is forced and channelled thru the technique. As a beginner I think this takes on the form of pure physical muscle tension, but as one progresses it becomes more relaxed, and with channelled and directed force.

With internal arts, the development of qi is much more subtle and less obvious, and takes much longer and is more elusive, but perhaps has greater ultimate potential. I am sure you can give a much better description of this than I can.

At the risk of making an oversimplified statement, I will also suggest that qi developement in the Northern external styles is somewhat more similar to Internal Style qi development, than is Southern "hard qi" development. I think the description I gave above is somewhat more common to the Southern exernal arts than it is to the Northern. I wish I could give a better description than this, but this is about the best of my understanding.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes I imagine that would be the focus of any style now that you mention it.

That is pretty much what is said about hard styles in China, when the practitioner is young they have no need to train Internal. However a lot of external training supposedly creates an imbalance that needs to be corrected for health purposes when the practitioner gets older, thus the internal Qi Gong training begins.

You are correct about Hard Qi and soft Qi. As for the differences between external and internal, and here is an over simplified version, I believe it is that external builds up Qi in the limbs and then sends it inward, which is supposedly easier, And you are right more muscle tension is involved and after training this way for awhile it becomes easier to stay relaxed while executing your forms or attacks (This is also a big part of Xingyi – which is considered hard/soft).

Internal builds up Qi in the center and sends out to the limbs and it tends to be more relaxed and is supposedly more difficult and takes more time.

Since I have never work specifically on external Qi development, I truly cannot say which is harder. I have done much more internal work and from my experience that does appear to make it more difficult, however I would not place money on that statement.

I should know more the end of this month when I start Xingyi again. The Xingyi I did before was focused on form only; this is starting with standing training, which is to some extent Qi training.

 

[brothershaw]

1- I wouldnt say wing chun uses dynamic tension ( at least not how I am being taught),
2- I would say the big difference between internal and external is the body mechanics as far as with the internal there is a WHOLE lot more going on that has to be synchronized to get it to work.
3- I used to think that external stuff becomes internal but not really.
Yes the more you do stuff the better and more natural at it you become, however some of the alignment and body mechanic issues among other things that make internal styles internal( if you get them right) will NOT come to you if you practice a "external" style unless you begin to drastically change alot of stuff, which is more than just practicing the style for years and years and getting better at it.
4- Many people practice "internal " styles for years and only get it a basic mechanical level

 

[Flying Crane]

1- I wouldnt say wing chun uses dynamic tension ( at least not how I am being taught),

4- Many people practice "internal " styles for years and only get it a basic mechanical level

1. I would agree, but sometimes when people are beginners it ends up being done this way until the student figures out how to do it correctly. I also understand that different teachers have different approaches for this. My lineage tends to focus on development of power, so this "forcing of chi" is stressed a lot. I have spoken with people who have trained with other teachers where this does not appear to be the case.

4. again, i would agree. development of chi in internal styles is elusive and fruitless for probably the great majority of people.

 

[Xue Sheng]

1- I wouldnt say wing chun uses dynamic tension ( at least not how I am being taught),
2- I would say the big difference between internal and external is the body mechanics as far as with the internal there is a WHOLE lot more going on that has to be synchronized to get it to work.
3- I used to think that external stuff becomes internal but not really.
Yes the more you do stuff the better and more natural at it you become, however some of the alignment and body mechanic issues among other things that make internal styles internal( if you get them right) will NOT come to you if you practice a "external" style unless you begin to drastically change alot of stuff, which is more than just practicing the style for years and years and getting better at it.
4- Many people practice "internal " styles for years and only get it a basic mechanical level

1. I would agree, but sometimes when people are beginners it ends up being done this way until the student figures out how to do it correctly. I also understand that different teachers have different approaches for this. My lineage tends to focus on development of power, so this "forcing of chi" is stressed a lot. I have spoken with people who have trained with other teachers where this does not appear to be the case.

4. again, i would agree. development of chi in internal styles is elusive and fruitless for probably the great majority of people.

1. Never studying Wing Chun I will have to depend on your expertise and of those that train Wing Chun, but if I understand what flyingcrane is saying this is not dissimilar from what occurs at the beginning of internal styles as well; too much force is applied by beginners.

2. Yes, exactly, I agree whole heartedly. But in saying this I am not saying one is better than the other. To become good at either internal or external takes a lot of hard work and many years of training. Although I cannot say this from experience I feel that you are able to become proficient (not master, but being competent and able to defend yourself) in an external martial art before you can in an internal martial art. And I also feel that you can practice and proficiently use an internal martial art longer (into old age) than you can many external styles.

3. My statement about internal going to external or external going to internal is a saying from China from a long time ago. I do not think that it is a requirement however; I believe it is up to the practitioner. So I do think it is possible that it could go that way and in some cases it does and in others it doesn't.

4. Yes, exactly, I agree whole heartedly. I would go as far as saying most, the internal work is MUCH harder than people think and takes a lot more time than they believe.

The body mechanics and theory behind internal CMA can, and does, in some cases differ greatly from style to style. It can also differ from family to family or region to region within that those styles. As it can with extrenal styles

 

[Danjo]

This may be ignorant, but I read somewhere that "internal" referred to taoist arts created within China and the "external" referred to Buddhist arts brought to China from India. Has anyone else heard of this definition, or was the source a crackpot?

 

[CrushingFist]

This may be ignorant, but I read somewhere that "internal" referred to taoist arts created within China and the "external" referred to Buddhist arts brought to China from India. Has anyone else heard of this definition, or was the source a crackpot?

same here

When I was 14 I started practicing Hung Ga, and I read it was hard/soft.
I didn't practice long enough, but I lose interest of things fast.
It was good, until I was learning the forms, I actually like to learn diff. applications (from the forms) and train them to see how I can use them in a real confrotation. As when I least expect it, I have learned the form I guess. But its been 6yrs now since I have practiced, I only remember punches, kicks, very little blocks, and some chi-kung exercises.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This may be ignorant, but I read somewhere that "internal" referred to taoist arts created within China and the "external" referred to Buddhist arts brought to China from India. Has anyone else heard of this definition, or was the source a crackpot?

The long answer

The source is not a crackpot, but not entirely correct either. And if they are from Taoist or Buddhist sources they tend to be the philosophical side not the religious. Also there are some that are Muslim.

Internal styles

Tai Chi if you agree with the most excepted history comes from a Taoist named Chang, Sen-Feng. However the Chen family claims it is exclusively from them. Either way it has a basis in the Tao Te ching with is decidedly Taoist.

Xingyiquans origins are not as certain but it is usually credited to General Yue Fei of the Song Dynasty. He created it (at least the 5 element form) for his officers or soldiers for combat; I do not believe neither Taoism nor Buddhism is associated with General Yue Fei, as far as Xingyi goes.

There is also some argument that Xingyiquan at least the animal styles are from the Shaolin temple, if true this is Buddhist

Baguazhang is based on Taoist circle walking but the creator is considered to be Dong Haichauan, it is also possible that he was taught this by a Taoist and there are some that say his teacher was a Buddhist.

Liuhe Bafa or Liu He Ba Fa creator I have no idea who that is suppose to be, but it is in principal suppose to be associated with the water exercise from the Song Dynasty and that was supposedly created by a Taoist named Chen Po.

External styles

Shaolin styles are Buddhist and many external styles were influenced by or came from Shaolin.

I am certain there are external styles, or at least one, (the last one I list) that are not considered Buddhist just as Xingyi is internal and not considered Taoist.

A partial list

Buddhist styles are styles that were created or trained mostly within Buddhist temples (primarily Chan Buddhism) or by Buddhist monks, later on spreading out to laymen. These styles often include Buddhist philosophy, imagery, numbers, and principles. The most famous are arts from the Shaolin Temple and descendant arts, like Shaolinquan, Luohanquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun and White Crane. Shaolinquan places much emphasis on having a balance between the hard (offensive) and soft (defensive) elements.

Taoist styles are styles that were created or trained mostly within Taoist Temples or by Taoist ascetics, which often later spread out to laymen. These styles include those trained in the Wudang temple, and often include Taoist principles, philosophy, and imagery. Some of these arts include Taijiquan, Wudangquan, Baguazhang, Liu He Ba Fa and Huolongzhang.

Muslim styles are those that were practiced traditionally solely or mainly by the Muslim Hui minority in China. These styles often include Muslim principles or imagery. Some of these styles include Chaquan, Xinyiliuhequan, and Qishiquan.

But there is also Shuai jiao the Chinese wrestling art which is believed to have come from Jiao li which was a grappling martial art that was developed in the Zhou Dynasty between 10th and 3rd century BCE. It is considered among the oldest systematic martial arts in the world. I believe its origin is military not Taoist or Buddhist

 

[7starmantis]

Buddhist styles are styles that were created or trained mostly within Buddhist temples (primarily Chan Buddhism) or by Buddhist monks, later on spreading out to laymen. These styles often include Buddhist philosophy, imagery, numbers, and principles. The most famous are arts from the Shaolin Temple and descendant arts, like Shaolinquan, Luohanquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun and White Crane. Shaolinquan places much emphasis on having a balance between the hard (offensive) and soft (defensive) elements.

I agree with much of what you siad, however I think its a mistake to offer "hard" as offensive while "soft" being defensive. Thats a misunderstanding of the "hard" or "soft" principles. Although, I guess you could use whatever words you want to describe your style of fighting, I think its misleading.

7sm

 

[CrushingFist]

Xing Yi Quan translates as ‘Form and Will’ boxing. Founded by Ji Ji Ke in the late Ming era, Xing Yi is a direct and attacking inner style of wushu, the most aggressive of the three major internal Chinese arts. Students become skilled at developing devastating internal power and channelling that energy into their hands at will. Rarely retreating, Xing Yi holds to the central line and uses five major striking methods corresponding to the five elements of Chinese medical theory.

http://www.kungfu-taichi.com/servlet/kungfoo/Action/SeminarHub/Style/xing/#xing

 

[Danjo]

The long answer

The source is not a crackpot, but not entirely correct either. And if they are from Taoist or Buddhist sources they tend to be the philosophical side not the religious. Also there are some that are Muslim.

Internal styles

Tai Chi if you agree with the most excepted history comes from a Taoist named Chang, Sen-Feng. However the Chen family claims it is exclusively from them. Either way it has a basis in the Tao Te ching with is decidedly Taoist.

Xingyiquans origins are not as certain but it is usually credited to General Yue Fei of the Song Dynasty. He created it (at least the 5 element form) for his officers or soldiers for combat; I do not believe neither Taoism nor Buddhism is associated with General Yue Fei, as far as Xingyi goes.

There is also some argument that Xingyiquan at least the animal styles are from the Shaolin temple, if true this is Buddhist

Baguazhang is based on Taoist circle walking but the creator is considered to be Dong Haichauan, it is also possible that he was taught this by a Taoist and there are some that say his teacher was a Buddhist.

Liuhe Bafa or Liu He Ba Fa creator I have no idea who that is suppose to be, but it is in principal suppose to be associated with the water exercise from the Song Dynasty and that was supposedly created by a Taoist named Chen Po.

External styles

Shaolin styles are Buddhist and many external styles were influenced by or came from Shaolin.

I am certain there are external styles, or at least one, (the last one I list) that are not considered Buddhist just as Xingyi is internal and not considered Taoist.

A partial list

Buddhist styles are styles that were created or trained mostly within Buddhist temples (primarily Chan Buddhism) or by Buddhist monks, later on spreading out to laymen. These styles often include Buddhist philosophy, imagery, numbers, and principles. The most famous are arts from the Shaolin Temple and descendant arts, like Shaolinquan, Luohanquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun and White Crane. Shaolinquan places much emphasis on having a balance between the hard (offensive) and soft (defensive) elements.

Taoist styles are styles that were created or trained mostly within Taoist Temples or by Taoist ascetics, which often later spread out to laymen. These styles include those trained in the Wudang temple, and often include Taoist principles, philosophy, and imagery. Some of these arts include Taijiquan, Wudangquan, Baguazhang, Liu He Ba Fa and Huolongzhang.

Muslim styles are those that were practiced traditionally solely or mainly by the Muslim Hui minority in China. These styles often include Muslim principles or imagery. Some of these styles include Chaquan, Xinyiliuhequan, and Qishiquan.

But there is also Shuai jiao the Chinese wrestling art which is believed to have come from Jiao li which was a grappling martial art that was developed in the Zhou Dynasty between 10th and 3rd century BCE. It is considered among the oldest systematic martial arts in the world. I believe its origin is military not Taoist or Buddhist

Thank you for your thoughtful and extensive reply. That clears up much for me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I agree with much of what you siad, however I think its a mistake to offer "hard" as offensive while "soft" being defensive. Thats a misunderstanding of the "hard" or "soft" principles. Although, I guess you could use whatever words you want to describe your style of fighting, I think its misleading.

7sm

Let me explain better.

For individual applications yes I agree a soft application can be used offensively and there are hard blocks. But for over all style, hard styles such as shaolin tend to be more offensive where as soft styles such as Tai Chi tend to be more defensive. This is not saying a Shaolin will attack anyone that walks buy, it is saying in a confrontation hard styles tend to go on the offensive more than soft styles. As my Tai Chi teacher has said, "Tai Chi does not attack".

And if you are talking Chinese martial arts, nothing is obvious.

However there are always exceptions to the rule. For example Xingyi tends to be a style that is given more to attack as defense. And if you believe the most excepted history of Xingyi it was made for war and in some cases is meant to mimic a spear attack.without the spear. (Although there are Xingyi weapons forms).

Chinese styles are categorized as Hard or External, Soft or Internal. Tai Chi and I believe Bagua are referred to as Soft, Xingyi is hard soft and Shaolin is hard. This is actually more in dealing with the development of Qi either from the outside (limbs) in to center, hard style or inside (center) out to limbs soft style.

However the best description I have heard of a True Tai Chi martial artist is cotton-covered iron.

My Tai Chi teacher, if you do push hands with him, has a very soft touch, that is until he uses fajing to send you backwards about 5 feet. He is also considerably smaller than I am, and he says I am considerably stronger than he is. But if he absorbs my force, which he does very well and I cannot move him. He will then redirect my force and move me or use my force against me and he is usually very successful. There have been rare occasions that I have been successful. That is a soft style.

My Shaolin long fist teacher (years ago) would have blocked and or locked me and probably hit me in the head. That is a hard style