What is Internal?

[BSH]

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:

1) If you have internal, you know it.

2) Everyone thinks they have internal.

So here is the question,

How do you define Internal vs External??

[Shooter]

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.

"If the mind is located outside the body, it should not be in contact with the needs of the body. But, in fact, the body feels what the mind knows, and the mind knows what the body feels. Therefore, it can not be said that the human mind is outside the body. Where, then, does the substance of the mind exist?"
---------------------------------------------------------------

[No_Know]

"How do you define Internal vs External??"

Internal--addressing qi with breathing.
External--addressing qi with dynamic tension.

Very good. Some such-ish.

[shaolinboxer]

External: you have to think about it.

Internal: it just is.

[Shooter]

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

[Ka]

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

[bamboo_ leaf]

The non-usage of muscular force or bone alignment to motivate movement.

:)

[David Jamieson]

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

[Kempo Guy]

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

[Ky-Fi]

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.

[bamboo_ leaf]

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. :)

[shaolinboxer]

Kung Lek is correct.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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?

[guohuen]

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.
:D Don't make me use the four year old and the light switch analogy again. I'll turn this car around!:D

[JasBourne]

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).

[shaolinboxer]

"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.

[guohuen]

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".)

[BSH]

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.

[Shooter]

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. :p


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]

“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 :)

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Bambooleaf: Your internal ability is about giving up, listening and feeling. If you're a guy, you must by now be sensitive and new aged.

Guys should give up trying to solve their girl friend's problems but rather to emphatize with them and listen in earnest.

is this the secret to internal kung fu, you may not win many battles but may win many babes. But then again - love is a battlefield. The saying may not be chinese but seems to be universally true!

Bambooleaf- but seriously, with your internal powers how much better can you now fight?

[bamboo_ leaf]

“Bambooleaf- but seriously, with your internal powers how much better can you now fight?”

depends on who I have to fight I suppose.

i don't claim any ability beyond being able to relax a little

Mmm, it isn’t like one day you wake up and hey you got it. I think it’s more of a process and arriving at a place that suites you. For me this process has taken what some might say is a long time but still feels very short to me.

Oh no not the new age stuff!!!

A few thoughts, most of what I read about fighting here always seems to be related to fighting in some type of ring or sparring event. Since I do not share that outlook I can’t really speak to it.

The few run ins I did have with people my TC served me well. My training isn’t one based on proving but rather one based on following what I have found through experience and deepening skills needed that lead to this experience.

For me it’s not about fighting, but achieving inner and outer balance. (opps! (newage) It’s the tea im drinking) :)

Much of the outlook and ability I have found is dictated by the style. Some styles have a very aggressive approach, their training and thinking reflect this.
I came from this background, and tested myself with many different people and styles over the years before arriving to my present thoughts

In answer to your question I would say going from direct conscious action to unconscious ones based on the trained ability to listen and not resist others force gives one the freedom to react in a free and natural manor. Not easy and very often misinterpreted by those watching as displays of power rather then someone (the attacker) trying to regain balance lost by mind or body.

The ability to constantly seek inner peace and relaxation with an aware un judgmental mind allows one to live life and opens things up with out seeking them out.

For me this is much different mindset and body feeling then I had with the other styles that I played as a younger man.

[BSH]

Does anyone claim to have internal abilities which help them in a fight? By anyone, I don't mean the specific people on this board, but the MA community as a whole.

For example, if I can cause enormous damage to someone by toucing them with one finger, would that be an internal ability which would help me in a fight?

For the record, I don't claim to be able to do this.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

"A few thoughts, most of what I read about fighting here always seems to be related to fighting in some type of ring or sparring event. Since I do not share that outlook I can’t really speak to it."

not always! as i wan't referring to a ring-based contest. The question wasn't whether you can go 10 rounds instead of 9. But to put some "bounds" to the original question - let me put it another way. Before you achieved internal abilities - it took you say 10 seconds to demolish an opponent in a street fight. Under the exact same conditions, how how you rate yourself with that same opponent had to do it all over again?

"For me it’s not about fighting, but achieving inner and outer balance. (opps! (newage) It’s the tea im drinking)"

That's interesting. on your webpage your dad taught in the Chinese military academy. wan't it tai chi applied in a combat environment. in combat you don't try to achieve a balance of forces but rather a domination of their force with yours.

"Much of the outlook and ability I have found is dictated by the style. Some styles have a very aggressive approach, their training and thinking reflect this."

Tai chi like other fighting syles in the north are aggressive. How can you win a battle by being on the defensive. No army hunkers down and expects the enemy to go away and declare victory once they're gone.

"I came from this background, and tested myself with many different people and styles over the years before arriving to my present thoughts"

It's hard to reconcile your line of thinking with your exposure to the combat line of tai chi - as suggested in biograph of your web page. I don't think the chinese army was about achieving inner peace in the hearts of the soldiers.

"In answer to your question I would say going from direct conscious action to unconscious ones based on the trained ability to listen and not resist others force gives one the freedom to react in a free and natural manor. Not easy and very often misinterpreted by those watching as displays of power rather then someone (the attacker) trying to regain balance lost by mind or body."

If you could move and respond naturally as you said you could - you're most likely a good fighter. Especially if you could disrupt an opponent's balance and topple them. But its all about centre of gravity, staying relaxed and superior tactics. Its unnecessary to express it in a convoluted way.

"The ability to constantly seek inner peace and relaxation with an aware un judgmental mind allows one to live life and opens things up with out seeking them out."

That is such a nothing statement!

"For me this is much different mindset and body feeling then I had with the other styles that I played as a younger man."

I guess in the end, in self defence, it matters less with what you think, its more about what you do that matters. Call it a golden elephant fist rising out from the primeval ocean OR an uppur cut. if delivered properly - it hurts the other guy. That's all there is to kung fu.

[bamboo_ leaf]

Mmmm,

Do you always ask questions with your own answers in mind?

What do you know of combat? Have you every trained any one for it or have been trained? I have. :)

I happen to like Mr. Chengs, movements and many of his ideas. The method one uses to get to a certain place is not the place its self.

I think there may be some confusion on your part about the web page. The first is that it is not my web page but one that I visit and sometimes post there as here.

The second is that using a method doesn’t mean you give up your own mind, I use his method (form) but the TC is mine.

Your statements on fighting are about dominating, controlling, “demolishing” if that mind set works for you good, it seems a little heavy for me so I don’t think in these terms anymore.

The post was on “How do you define Internal vs External??”

I think it’s good way to see what different people feel they understand and present views.

Those that can agree with what one says probably have experienced the same things, those that don’t either are working towards it or they feel what ever their doing is correct for them.
hopfully they reamain open and continue to grow.

I didn’t read any place in there about fighting ability or before and after. As I said, in my experience it’s a long process with many levels. The first and most important part is to determine what internal means to you. This will be the bases of all of ones training, ideas, and outlook.

I presented mine some post back. Anyway very off topic for such an interesting post, sorry for this :(

[Kumkuat]

I practice an internal martial art. I don't think I can fight better with it. Most people think internal is some magical thing where it makes men into superman. Well, it's not. But it'll be cool to be as badazzed as Chen Fake, but he's probably one in a million.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

"Do you always ask questions with your own answers in mind?"

Is that how I come across? Must be my ego speaking but i do know alot.

"What do you know of combat? Have you every trained any one for it or have been trained? I have."

hand to hand combat yes. I have had extensive experience in northern kung fu where i practiced regularly. That was before my car accident that left me in a wheel chair. my research now is theoritical as you can understand.

"I happen to like Mr. Chengs, movements and many of his ideas. The method one uses to get to a certain place is not the place its self."

what exactly do you mean? don't be so cryptic.

"I think there may be some confusion on your part about the web page. The first is that it is not my web page but one that I visit and sometimes post there as here."

why then are you linking to his web page in all your post. did you train under a military man or have i already given you too much credit?

"The second is that using a method doesn’t mean you give up your own mind, I use his method (form) but the TC is mine."

well tai chi is a method. of course how you use it depends on the situation as it is broad enough to deal with light to heavy confrontations. The second which you failed to mention is how much of it would your opponent allow you to use. This deoends on the mismatch of skill or situation that may be outside your control. Is this what you mean?

"Your statements on fighting are about dominating, controlling, “demolishing” if that mind set works for you good, it seems a little heavy for me so I don’t think in these terms anymore."

what terms do you think in given that TC is a combat system? you mentioned about ideas, outlook. isn't the objective of self defence quite clear regardless of whether you have a internal or external mindset.

There was an article on adam hsu's website which expressed the ambiguity in talking in these terms. To a large extent i agree and see things in terms of an objective and theories in achieving that goal. Self defence is a goal and is a matter of choosing a combat system that works well in a sufficiently wide range of situations. I would say tai chi is one of them. Why then would the topic of internal or external be relevant?

Given that you know what is internal - perhaps you can provide us with a defination. Internal is........

[Metal Fist]

Too many people try to put a label on what is internal vs. external. Internal is harder for people to "see" or understand, and it poses problems for those who wish to define it.
Bamboo_Leaf does know of what he speaks, he used to be my
Mantis and TaiChi teacher, he will probably tell you that back then he wasn't as connected or some such thing, well he was and I learned alot from him. I have seen him in action and it was a joy to watch. Hello B_L from Huntsville. All I have to say about increasing Internal is that one has to work and search for it and it is something that as B_L alluded to earlier, it is a relaxation with full intention while using or playing your TaiChi or other "Internal" art. JMHO. :D :cool: :D

[bamboo_ leaf]

Oops ! cover blown.
Hey metal fist, long time no hear. :)


“Given that you know what is internal - perhaps you can provide us with a defination. Internal is........”
I did in my earlier post this is my understanding at this point in time, this is what I seek in my own practice and can do on a basic level compared to some that I have practiced with.


The combat I was talking about was with and in the US army for awhile mostly grunt units. This is training for combat.

I don’t think anyone can really give a definition that most would accept unless they themselves can really do it. then it becomes a matter of level of understanding.

Even in much of the things I have read and people I have talked with none have said this and only this is internal. Mostly they talk in terms of what it is not, and demonstrate what they believe it to be. A persons level has a lot to do with their ability to feel what is really happening.

Some people may just feel the raw effect of any movement done, and just relate it to the person having a lot of power. Others may actually be able to feel what is called Shen, (sprit) yi (intent) chi (inner energy) being put to use. If they can feel it then they know it, but may not have devleoped their own ability enough in this area.

I think that what ever you perceive to be internal this is what you will follow independent of any definition. Weather this helps in fighting or self-defense really I can’t say. Its a point that you view and operate from, not like something that you switch on or off from my experience.

Even looking at the way movements are done I think there should be a qualitative difference in what I call the motivational forces used to move or develop a movement. In some styles the idea of movement is more important then the actually movement expressed with the body. YI-chaun comes to mind. (could be wrong just from reading about it)

Some TC styles have very simple and small movements where the ideation of the movement is very important Wu style and the Cheng style being one of them. I would say that the intent of these styles is to develop the inner aspects of TC in a more direct way then some of the other TC styles IMHO.


The usage and perception of what is called internal has a lot to do with style and teacher followed until you really have a sense of what your looking for or expect.

For me when we talk of internal and external it’s more of an operating perspective that a person chooses to function from, not a case of one being better then the other as sometimes I feel the implication is here when this is brought up.

You mentioned that you presently do not have the use of your legs due to an accident . Sorry to hear of this.
I would say that this would be the time to really go into this aspect of your training, I think that much of what I read in your postings would change pulse it could only improve your health.
;)

We all have our own ideas until exposed or faced with different ideas then our own. I have seen people dealing with some very good what I would call high level people that in spite of what was being done to them refused to adopt or consider a different perspective. they like and enjoy power, force, LI, This is okay. We all have our own roads to travel.

A student comes to a teacher wanting to learn: the teacher shows him the highest skill “the ability to relax and stand in inner and outer balance” the student says ” hey teacher when are we really going to start learning the real Kung fu stuff?” teacher looks and smiles “ okay come on” he shows him all the sets and forms after many years he tells the student “ I’m going to teach you the highest level I think your ready now” the student smiles,

the teacher says “ come over here stand relax inside and out”

At this point in my own development the simplest is often the hardest / it takes time and a willingness to give up (meaning to open oneself up to other possibilities) until they become a reality.

kinda of topic again :( always interesting

[3D Man]

Internal is the ability to understand your energy and your opponent's energy and apply leverage via strikes and/or grappling.

External is the ability to generate power regardless of the opponent.

External stylists can break bricks; internal stylists cannot. Both possess knockout power.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

"I think that what ever you perceive to be internal this is what you will follow independent of any definition. Weather this helps in fighting or self-defense really I can’t say. Its a point that you view and operate from, not like something that you switch on or off from my experience."

I think this is the key statement in your post. If "internal" is non-definable, and conversely the opposit "external" cannot be defined - then it is useless to make comparisions between the two.

Lets assuming they can be defined AND there is only a choice between the two AND are multually exclusive, THEN the method of training / perspective MUST be evaluated the underlying objective of kung fu - namely self defence. It stands to reason that one should coose the superior of the two.

Agreed, experience cannot be switched on and off and there is a high degree of "art" - which i would equate to personal preference, in the way techiques are applied, but underlying all this is a "science" as to what is universally effective.

For example, prior to cannons, walled fortification is fantastic defence applied by the Chinese, Romans and other Middle Eastern Cultures. This is the science - the art would be how a General feels a wall should be reinforced and respond to the changing colors of battle. The science is "universal" whereas, the art is specific to the individual.

What do you consider to be the science of hand-to-hand combat?
I feel this is a much more practical way to look at things.