External is often described as muscular power oriented, tense, linear and directly opposing force. IMO, these are half-truths (except for those who follow an exaggerated version as found in a few karate styles). So, if the core concepts are common in both internal and external, what is the difference?
The core concepts are not the same. If they were, there would be little reason for the distinction in the first place.
There is an old saying in Chinese martial arts:
å¤ē»ēéŖØē®ļ¼å
ē»äøå£ę°
WĆ i liĆ n jÄ«n gĒ pĆ, nĆØi liĆ n yÄ« kĒu qƬ.
"Externally train the tendons, bones, and skin; internally train the qi."
Distinctions in Training
External (å¤)
ē (jÄ«n) ā tendon
éŖØ (gĒ) ā bone
ē® (pĆ) ā skin
Internal (å
)
ę (yƬ) ā intention / mind
ę°£ (qƬ) ā inner energy / vital force
ē„ (shĆ©n) ā spirit
Both train the same body, but they begin from different assumptions and use different methods to develop different qualities. Those qualities, in turn, influence how the techniques are expressed.
This is why people ask whether there is an "internal punch," "internal kick," or "internal throw." Not understanding the technique itself is not internal or external. It is an expression of the method used to develop it.
Some methods are avoidedāor performed quite differentlyābecause they violate the core principles upon which that method is based.
Historically the Muscle/Tendon Change Classic (ęēē», YƬ JÄ«n JÄ«ng) is traditionally associated with developing the body's physical qualities the Marrow/Brain Washing Classic (ę“é«ē», XĒ SuĒ JÄ«ng), with cultivating the body's internal qualities.
The training methodology may be different, one stressing some of the above-described attributes more than others. And how they are described using language that reflects their art's world view is different. Stylistically, they look different as well. But is this enough to "justify the distinction?"
The distinction is important to those within the practice who are seeking to deepen their own understanding. Outside of that, it matters very little.
Notice how demonstrations of these skill sets are often questioned or dismissed by those who have not trained the methods being shown. That, in itself, suggests the distinction is meaningful within the practice, even if it appears unimportant from the outside.
Whether one accepts the terminology is secondary. The methods, training, and resulting skills are what ultimately justify the distinction.
What I see as the major difference is the method of power delivery. At least this is what stands out to me. Many internal CMA strikes appear to me to be constant throughout their path, from origin in the core to contact, the force being consistently applied, like a flowing river. In traditional (Okinawan mainly) karate, the force is variable, the strike explosively launched from the core, loosely travelling to the target, then tensing (along with the body) on contact with the target. It's more like the snap of a whip than a flowing river. We call this chinkuchi.
Whether this is a main important, concrete differences between internal and external I don't know. But it may be the most visible. Your comments?
Interesting concept...
ChatGPT: "While there is overlap, internal chinkuchi is generally described as an internal organization of the body that produces efficient whole-body connection and power transmission. Taiji internal training, particularly as described in the classical literature, typically places greater emphasis on relaxation (ę¾), listening (å¬å²), intention (ę), sensitivity, balance, and whole-body integration as the foundation for movement and power.
Although both traditions seek unified body mechanics, Taiji generally treats internal organization as part of a broader process involving perception, adaptation, and interaction, rather than focusing primarily on the expression of force."
To really answer that question, one would first have to reproduce or experience the kinds of demonstrations that are often questioned. Without that, it is difficult to know whether the observed differences are merely stylistic or the result of fundamentally different methods of training.
