Waijia/Neijia who first coined these distinctions

[Ka]

I had been of the impression that Sun Lu Dang was the first to put into print Waijia/Neijia?I am not sure if this is true or not?Does this suggest that these terms where in regular use before his time or that he was the first to determine this distinction?
Any comments/history whatever
welcome

[YiLiJingLei]

I've read the same thing you have, that it was Sun Lu Tang that first made the distinction between "Internal" and "External" schools in one of his books, possibly just for the sake of classification. Then when the martial arts magazines started to talk about Chinese martial arts in the 60's, then especially later in the 70's, they really started the hype between Karate & Kung Fu, and the supposed difference between "Nei Jia" and Wai Jia".
I personally feel that, while the distinction is sometimes convenient, it is technically a farce for Chinese martial arts, as they all have thier own methods of qi gong; the main distinction between systems depends on how much a particular instructor knows about the underlying principles of thier specific system, whether you're talking about Shaolin, Southern Praying Mantis, Tai Ji, Xing Yi, Ba Gua, Hung Gar, whatever. You have to train hard in any system to learn how to use it, the same amount of blood, sweat, and tears.
"Soft" and "Hard" do not equate as "Internal" or "External", either. 'Soft' and 'Hard' systems is a reference to the kind of fighting strategy a martial art system generally employs: 'Soft' strategies overcome by "yielding" and "blending" with an attack to counter it, 'Hard' strategies overcome by direct, aggressive opposition. Therefore, one could catagorize Judo as a "Soft-External" system, or Xing Yi as a "Hard Internal" system, etc.
Just my opinion, and we all know what those are like.

[Sam Wiley]

According to the introduction in Sun Lu-tang's book on Xingyiquan:

"The first known grouping of these arts under the name 'internal family' occurred in 1894. Ba Gua Zhang master Cheng Ting Hua and his friends Liu De Kuan, Li Cun Yi, and Liu Wei Xiang came together to form an organization of martial artists in order to improve the level of their arts, increase harmony within the martial arts circles, and raise the skill level of their students....In order to provide this martial art family with a name, the group originally called it Nei Jia Quan (Internal Family Boxing). Later, after it was discovered that there had previously been an art called Nei Ji Quan , the name was changed to Nei Gong Quan (Internal Skill Boxing), however it was too late, the name Nei Ji Quan had stuck....The first publicly published works which referred to these arts being 'internal'and of the same family were the books published by Sun Lu Tang in the early part of this century."

This other art, Nei Jia Quan, was said to have been passed down from Chang San-feng of Wudang. Thus the confusion. And since Nei Jia Quan was Wudang Boxing, people also associated them with Wudang Boxing.

There is another theory that says the arts were first separated with that distinction thanks to a manuscript. I forget the author's name or what the subject was. I think it was a written eulogy or something like that for a dead master. Anyway, the manuscript spoke of internal and external arts, and it was thoguht that the division was made for political reasons.

[Crimson Phoenix]

Sam, my bagua sifu told me that version too, about Cheng's meeting with the other persons.
However it might pretty well be that this distinction existed long before it was put in written form. Most practicionners back in the days were illiterate and it is only recently in the history of styles that educated practicionners discussed and wrote down the theories in books.
Nevertheless, this distinction could also be a pure creation of these educated practicionners, hence quite recent.
I guess we'll never know the truth on that matter.

[RAF]

Some sources that help me make sense of it all:

1. Bagua Qi Gong, Pa Kua Chang Journal, vol 5., no. 2 Jan/Feb 1995; pp. 13-21.

2. Bagua Zhang Qi Gong Methods-Part II, Pa Kua Chang Journal, vol 5., no. 3 March/April, 1995; pp. 9-18

3. Martial Arts Taught in the Old Tradition, What is Bagua Zhang, Part-III, Pa Kua Chang Journal, vol 5., no. 3 March/April, 1995; pp. 29-30.

4. Chinese Boxing: The Internal Versus External Schools in the Light of History and Theory, Stanley E. Henning, Journal of Asian Martial Arts, vol. 6, no. 3, 1997, pp. 11-19

"The earlies reference to Internal versus External scholls of boxing appears in an Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (c.1669) by historian and Ming patriot, Huang Zongxi (1610-1695) . . ."From beginning to end, the Epitaph is a curious document indeed. The Epitaph itsle is only one line at the end of 3 pages of background information. Huang claims that he that he wrote it at the request of one Gao Zhensi, who provided the input. This could be interpreted as a disclaimer by Huang as to the accuracy of the content. For instance,"Zhang Sanfeng" Huang mentions as having originated the Internal School of boxing seems almost certain to a reference to a Daoist alchemist mentioned in the Ming History and various Daoist Writings. However, Huan places him in a different perio and uses a different character with the same pronounciation for the their character in Zhang's name. Furthermore, there is no historical evidend that a distinct SHAOLING OR EXTERNAL SCHOOL OF BOXING EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS APEARANCE IN THE EPITAPH.

MING PERIOD OBSERVATIONS BY VISITORS TO THE SHAOLING MONASTERY MERELY REVEAL THAT MARTIAL ARTS, INCLUDING VARIOUS POPULAR STYLES OF BOXING SUCH AS MONKEY BOXING, WERE PRACTICED THERE BY SOME MONKS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, ALTHOUGH MING PERIOD MILITARY WRITING ON THE SUBJECT DO MENTION SHAOLIN STAFF, THEY FAIL TO MENTION SHAOLIN OR EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SCHOOLS OF BOXING AMON THE WELL-KNOWN ARTS OF THE DAY. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE EPITAPH COMPARES THE DECEASED'S ALLEGED PROWESS TO THE WIDELY PERCEIVED FAME OF SHAOLIN MARTIAL ARTS TO ENHANCE HIS IMAGE--THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A GOOD EULOGY.

AS A MING PATRIOT AND STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF SOUTHERN REFUGEE RESISTANCE AGAINST THE MANCHUS, HUAN HAD NO USE FOR THE QING. AS A CONFUCIAN SCHOLAR, HE AHD NO PARTICULAR USE FOR EITHER THE FOREIGN BUDDHIST OR INDIGENOUS DAOIST RELIGIONS; BUT DAOIST PHILOSOPHY, AT LEAST, WAS A WORTHY INDIGENOUS PRODUCT THAT STRONGLY INFLUENCED CHINESE MILITARY THOUGHT. THUS, IN THE EPITAPH, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH HAUN IS PITTING THE DAOIST INTERNAL SCHOOL OF BOXING AGAINST THE BUDDHIST EXTERNAL SCHOOL TO SYMBOLIZE CHINESE OPPOSITION TO THE MANCHUS. SUPPORT FOR THIS INTERPRETATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE FACT THAT THE MANCHUS USED BUDDHISM TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR RULE OVER THE TIBETANS AND MONGOLIAN IN THE GREATER QING EMPIRE. AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THE MANCHU EMPEROR HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A BODHISATTVA IN A LETTER SENT BY THE DALAI LAMA AND PANCHEN LAMA IN 1640. THE YONGHE PALACE (A LAMA TEMPLE) IN BEIJING IS A VESTIGE OF THIS POLITICAL USE OF RELIGION. ALSO, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS MERE COINCIDENCE, IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT POSSIBLE SYMBOLISM EVEN IN THE NAMES OF WANG ZHENGNAN (FIGHT IN THE SOUGHT) AND HIS ALLEGED TEACHER, SHAN SINAN (THINK ABOUT THE SOUTH), AS WELL AS ONE OF HUANG ZONGXI'S OWN STYLE NAMES NANLEI, SOUTHERN THUNDER (A MOUNTAIN AREA WHERE HE LIVED)

Nonetheless, the concept of "stillness overcoming movement" and the broad characteristics inherent int he two routines and five principles allow one to tentatively conclude that the basic tenets of the SO-CALLED INTERNAL SCHOOL OF BOXING APPEAR TO BE IN FULL ACCORD WITH TRADITONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS THEORY AS REGARD THE USE OF FORCE--THE COMBINATION OF HARD AND PLIANT TECHNIQUES. THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT THE SAME BASIC THEORY CAN BE FOUND IN MANY SIGNIFICANT MARTIAL ARTS WRITINGS OF THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES, INCLUDING MING GENERAL YU DAYOU'S CLASSIC OF SWORDSMANSHIP (1561, ACTUALLY A TREATISE ON STAFF FIGHTING INCLUDED AS A CHPATER IN GENERAL QI JIGUANG'S TRAINING MANUAL, NEW BOOK OF EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE); CHENG ZONGYOU'S EXPLANATION OF SHAOLING STAFF METHODS (C.1621); AND WU SHU'S RECORD OF ARM (C. 1678)

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SO-CALLED INTERNAL SCHOOL OF BOXING ACTUALLY APPEARS TO HAVE REPRESENTED MAINSTREAM MARTIAL ARTS THEORY, APPLICABLE REGARDLESS OF STYLE. THIS FACT TENDS TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE SYMBOLISM IN THE EPITAPH WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND NOT A SERIOUS DISCOURSE ON CONTEMPORARY SCHOOLS OF MARTIAL ARTS. HOWEVER, ONCE THE INK HAD DRIED, THE DIE WAS CAST AND THE VIEW THAT THERE WERE TWO SCHOOLS OF CHINESE BOXING HAS PERSISTED TO THIS DAY, OVER 300 HUNDRED YEARS LATER!

It gets much deeper as the author show how the division of Internal and External schools run counter to the basic tenets of Chinese martial arts theory (maiden of Yue in the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue, c. 58-125 AD)

Under Emperor Qianlong's (1736-1795) literary inquisition, the collection of Huangxi's writings containing the Epitaph was identified for destructuio, but the order was never carried. In any case, bits and piecs of it had already appeared in other writings. The earliese instance was in a brief 3 line endnote to a story titled "Martial Skills" in the highly popular Strange Tales from the Studio of Small Talk (c. 1679). The note was added to acquaint the average reader with theINternal and External schools of boxing, and and abbreviated genealogy highlights the names of only a few of the alleged proponenets of the Internal School originally listed in the Epitaph. The name of one, WANG ZONG, WAS TO REAPPREAR CENTURIES LATER JUXTAPOSSED WITH THE NAME WANG ZONGYUE, THE ALLEGED AUTHOR OF TAIJIQUAN'S PERMIER TREATISE, TAIJIQUAN THEORY. In the next instance, in a revised eidtion of the Niingbo Gazetteer (c. 1733) portions of both the Epitaph and Internal School Boxing Methods were combined with the biorgraphical sketch of one of the alleged proponents of the itnernal school, Zhang Songqi.

According to the latest research, it ws not until 1894 that any specific style of boxing style of boxing was associated with the Internal School. Then several xingyiquan, baguazhang, and taiji masters formed a collaborative martial arts organization calling their styles Internal Boxing. However, it was SUN LUTANG (1860-1932), THE STUDENT OF ONE OF THOSE MASTERS, CHENG TINGHUA, WHO FIRST ASSOCIATED THESE THREE STYLES OF BOXING WITH THE INTERNAL SCHOOL PUBLICLY IN A SERIES OF BOOKS BEGINNING IN 1915. HOWEVER, THIS WASN NOT NECESSARILY WIDELY WELL-KNOWN AT THE TIME, AS REVEALED IN THE QING UNOFFICIAL CATEGORIZED EXTRACTS (1917) IN WHICH THE AUTHOR LISTS ABOUT TWO DOZEN STYLES OF BOXING MASTERS AS OF SEPTEMBER 1911. HE CALLS ONE STYLE SHAOLIN BOXING BUT DOES NOT CATEGORIZE ANY AS INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL. XINGYI, BAGUZHANG, AND TAIJIQUAN ARE NOT MENTION IN AN ENTIRE VOLUME OF 196 PAGES DEVOTED TO STORIES ABOUT MARTIAL ARTS MASTERS AND STYLES. A NUMBER OF STORIES THROUGHOUT THE VOLUME REFER TO THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SCHOOLS AND TO SHAOLIN BOXING, AND THERE IS ONE REFERENCE TO WUDANG BOXING, ANOTHER NAME FOR THE INTERNAL SCHOOL IDENTIFYING IT WITH THE SACRED DAOIST MOUNTAIN WHERE ZHANG SANFENG IS SAID TO LIVE.

"Boxing is divided into two shcools, internal and external, but more people are versed in the external school. Regardless of whether it is the internal or external school, one must individually execute with perfection his techniques of falling, rising, opening, closing, beginning and one must regulate the qi, understand the principles, and move with spirit to complete a form.Thus with a 5 inch ruler, it is not difficult to measure any space under heave. Futhermore, when practicing thelower body is most important. It is the foundation for the whole body. If it is not stable then, no matter what, it will be inadequate for a response agains a capable opponent.

Xu Longhou (1879-1945), who established the Physical Culture Research Association of Beijing in 1912, used this name in his ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION FO TAIJIQUAN FORMS. Xu also confues the alleged author of TAIJIQUAN THEORY, Wang Zongyue (said to be active during the Qianlong era), with Wang Zong (mentioned in Huang ZongXi's Epitaph as roughly the late Song period proponent of Internal School Boxing. There is some evidence that Li Yiyu referred to Xhang Sanfeng as the originator of taijiquan in a manuscript dated 1867, but that he dropped the reference in an 1881 manuscript. IN ANY CASE, SO FAR THE ONLY EXISTING TERM DIRECTLY ASSOCIATING TAIJIQUAN WITH THE INTERNAL OR WUDANG SCHOOL WERE PUBLISHED AFTER 1911.

Author's concluding paragraph: THE ARTIFICIALITY OF ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE CHINESE BOXING IN TERMS OF SO-CALLED shAOLIN OR EXERNAL AND WUDANG OR INTERNAL SCHOOLS, WHOS DIFFERENCES ARE SAID TO LIE IN THE EXTERNAL DISPLAY OF STRENGTH OF THE FORMER VERSUSES THE INTERNAL CULTIVATION OF ENERGY AND APPLICATION OF FORCE OF THE LATTER, BECOMES EVIDENT AFTER ONE BECOMES FAMILIAR WITH THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MARTIAL ARTS.
__________________________________________________

About 10 years or so ago, I got tired of the mystical BS surrounding taiji and bagua and turned to sources other than idiotic teachers whose cult tales of magic started to wear thin.

Sometimes I don't like what the historians write and it may very well not be THE TRUTH. I realize everything is possible but want to deal with what is probable. In my thinking, at this point in time, this is about as factual as one can expect.

My teacher (and lineage) never talked about a separation of internal and external (although there are different phases of training that emphasize things we might term external and internal) and this is what I follow.

Done!

[Sam Wiley]

RAF, that's the story. Hey, are you the same RAF that wrote the "Streetwise Self-Defense" article that's on textfiles.com?

Crimson Phoenix,
Although a lot of people tend to place a lot of credence on what Chinese researchers into the subject have found, I do not. The reason is that there have been mistakes made, things overlooked, and connections drawn without proof. That's not to say that someone else would not have made the same mistakes, but they are nevertheless there. People always say "but so-and-so's research says," but I can find research that says the earth is flat done in recent times if I looked for it. Up until this day, most people have believed that people walked on the moon in '69, but there are a growing number of skeptics based on some rather odd photographs supposedly take there, as well as modern scientific research, all of which points to it being a hoax. While I haven't seen anything to make me disbelieve that Americans walked on the moon then, I have seen some things that make me wonder. It's the same with the research done by some of thses Chinese scholars. Most of it seems pretty straight forward, but sometimes you read something and go, "wait, that doesn't seem right." I guess the problem is that people on either side have something to gain or lose by proving their story right or wrong, and so will lie about things. And I doubt that all the researchers have been totally unbiased.

All in all, the evidence always amounts to being inconclusive.

[RAF]

Sorry Sam that wasn't me.

I only started this writing when my teacher decided to come out. Given everything the article says, however, bagua seems to clearly have both external emphasis (before heaven) and internal emphasis (after heaven) training phases and development.

I am waiting for some publisher to put together an edited set of readings which combines the scholarship with the oral tradition pointing divergences and convergences.

My suspicion is a lot has been lost.

If you can, order the back issues or DVD of the Pa Kua Chang Journal. God, I miss it!

[RAF]

One last point Sam:

In your reply to CP you are correct about research and all the problems that arise with it. However, there are many books and claims that simply repeat myths as fact and historical research at least can help sort some of this out. It may not prove for certain any claims but it sure can falsify some claims, e.g. chinese martial arts arose out of the shaolin temples. Without the historical research, what do we have left?

I am more readily open to accepting someone who has gone through the records and attempted to sort out claims than some of the teachers I have had who continue to perpetuate myth as fact. And even their actions don't bother me as much as the cult that forms around the teachings. Over the years, I have seen some real flakes come and go and practice what I call crispy critter taijiquan (bagua hasn't been hit as far as my experiences go).

Ultimately each individual will have to decide what they believe or don't believe in but some beliefs are more probable than others. The sad thing is that you can count on one hand minus a thumb the number of professional historical researchers of traditional Chinese martial arts in the West. I have forgotten the guy who did the bagua research but its very impressive and I hear a rumor that more of his material will make it into the Western mainstream soon. I don't anyone else who has amassed such documentation in bagua.

Anyway, this subject has been beaten to death and its time for me to give it a rest. Now where is that Wujidude when you need him?????

[Sam Wiley]

Very true. We have come closer in recent years to finding the truth, or at least the bigger picture, than in the past. I think a lot more research has to be done, but it would be nice to see some unbiased research, which I feel we are coming closer to seeing. More people are realizing the value of objective research.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know the exact truth, because the further back you go the fuzzier things get. But if we can get close enough, and find enough pieces of the puzzle, we can at least make an educated guess as to what the whole looked like.

[Ka]

good value thanks gents,
Some one brought this up in another thread:
Does this make them(waijia/neijia)blood brothers or distant cousins?

Personally I think a lot of our understanding comes from large mistranlations/misinterpartations of some of the Written material.Thus many who have learn the hands on way have a differing veiw to the scholars.
This can be interwoven with cultural preceptions and the way it was brought into light in the west.eg everyone knows acupunture few understand moxibustion or bone setting.Too much concentration on an indivual part of a picture without the overall picture ever being veiwed in its total.

Forgot to add,On a previous thread a gent put forward indivual use as a way of determining internal from external.Bringing it into how you handle situations in all parts of your life.
Interesting stuff.