PDA

View Full Version : Internal vs External.



Laughing Cow
01-20-2003, 09:35 PM
Hi All.

Yeah, I hear you sigh another internal vs external thread.

But hold on a sec and read this bit:


The Sword Polisher's Record p 58 by Adam Hsu

Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung-fu, but rather different levels.

through rumors, jealousies, and rivalries, many confusing and contradictory viewpoints concerning internal and external spread.
When kung-fu came to America, students adopted many of their instructors' prejudices and misconceptions. In many cases, by not clearly understanding the use of internal and external in Chinese culture, students began to create their own explanations as to what the differences were. Needless to say, this added to an already confusing and unclear situation.
I believe that all these internal/external theories are in fact quite incorrect. The distinction is really very simple to understand. Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung-fu, but rather different levels. We can say that the external represents the lower or more elementary level of kung-fu, and the internal the higher and more complex.
Therefore in real kung-fu training, regardless of the style, one must begin from the external and patiently and systematically progress inward to the internal.
Since some instructors were unable to complete the entire training in their particular styles, many systems today are incomplete and never go beyond the external level. If practitioners are carefully guided by an honest and qualified teacher, who went through the complete training in a certain style, they will move step-by-step from the outside, through the door, climb upstairs to the top level, and then reach the internal-the highest level of kung-fu.

What is your take on this and your Opinions?

Scythe
01-21-2003, 02:31 AM
There is no doubt that there are alot of misconceptions about the martial arts. I believe that all the empty hand arts developed have a common background and much of the myticism that surrounds them is due to people not understanding them correctly. For instance some of the underlying kata in karate such as Sanchin are actually White crane gung fu forms, due to being taken out of context by the Okinawans and them not understanding the principle behind them they have been misconstrued to be a mere series of blocks and strikes or at best a dynamic tension exercise! Sanchin/Saamchin actually holds within it the key to all white crane pushing hands! Who would have thought that from a karate kata. This has happened with numerous forms and this is down to the fact that all too often people place too much importance on learning the sequences as opposed to what they actually do.

Internal/External, yes i believe it to be in substance a myth due to the fact that the 'external' systems are just movements from 'internal' systems taken out of context. But due to the way they have developed they have become separate in that one cannot deny the different emphasis the two have on different aspects of training but they are without doubt from the same lineage. but i believe that the majority of people who practice them do not realise their common link, so it is unlikely that there are many teachers of one system who would guide you from external through to internal, it is more a case of understanding the underlying principle behind alll the arts that will lead you to the higher levels.

Merryprankster
01-21-2003, 03:02 AM
My take/opinion is that it's an arrogantly written piece of drivel from an elitist who likes to think that what he does is "the best."

I don't care if Adam Hsu is an expert or a master or a grandmaster. Crap is crap regardless of the source.

TaiChiBob
01-21-2003, 05:53 AM
Greetings..

Adam's article brims with insight.. the arrogance is in those unwilling to admit that there is a natural progression in martial arts.. Too often someone has invested many years to learn a series of forms and techniques and assumes that he/she has mastered the art (they stagnate).. i have 30 years invested in martial arts, beginning with a rigid Japanese style and evolving into Chinese Internal Martial Arts.. discovering Tai Chi was like coming home, its subtle power found its way into all else that i had learned.. it improved my performance at every level.. Say what you will, but experience leads me to believe that perseverance and an open mind will reveal the same natural progression to those willing to make the journey..

Be well..

Laughing Cow
01-21-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
My take/opinion is that it's an arrogantly written piece of drivel from an elitist who likes to think that what he does is "the best."

I don't care if Adam Hsu is an expert or a master or a grandmaster. Crap is crap regardless of the source.

Would you explain than to us what makes his viewpoint so much crap?
Besides your obvious dislike for the Guy.

Or how about this article:
Neijia & Waijia (http://sixharmonies.org/pages/NeijiaWaijia1.htm)

I simply posted this here to gauge the reaction on this Board as this very same topic is being discussed at the moment on another TCC-Board I belong to.

Liokault
01-21-2003, 05:50 PM
I have to agree with MP.


BTW i have that book and it sucks from start to end.....best thing about it is the nice cover pic.:mad:

guohuen
01-21-2003, 06:07 PM
Sorry, I read his bookand felt he was being like a fifteen year old iconoclast railing at everything. Me thinks he spent too much time polishing his sword.

Serpent
01-21-2003, 07:36 PM
I agree about Hsu being arrogant, etc. What guohuen said especially.

However, Merryprankster and others are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, Hsu is a bit of a cock, but what he says there is absolutely true. If you find a complete system of kung fu it will start with the more external techniques and progress to the more internal. Hsu's description there is spot on.

I too have this book and it bugged the crap out of me, but there are still some very valuable points made therein. People like MP are still applying the "American, new age" perception of internal/external to Hsu's comments.

Merryprankster
01-22-2003, 03:45 AM
Serpent, I admit that my understanding is limited. However, w/regards to internal and external, I might point out that even the knowledgeable posters on this board have wildly varying definitions.

However, since I seem to misunderstand what you mean by internal and external, tell me what YOU think it means, and we'll work from there, agreed?

Laughing Cow--I have no particular dislike for the fellow. I have a strong dislike for his delivery. There is only a high or low level of understanding and application of principles. If that's all Adam Hsu means, then he is more or less correct, but not relevatory. It holds true for all arts. However, he writes it like the people who do what he thinks is the "right way," are special. It's not the content, mostly. It's the undertone.

Bottom line--this reads like the crap Rorion puts out about GJJ or that BJJ drones spout about BJJ. It fosters an elitist attitude that does far more harm than good. The nature of elitism changes, and how it is expressed, is different from art to art, but doesn't help anybody except people who want to "feel special."

TaiChiBob
01-22-2003, 05:56 AM
Greetings..

I do not have the book.. i do have peresonal experience with Adam Hsu, he is a gifted practicioner.. I didn't sense an elitist attitude, rather an expectation that if you choose to learn CMA that you commit to it.. Without having an in-depth knowledge of the man, i suspect that he would not favor a half-hearted approach to CMA.. if that's the definition of elitist, so be it..

What i sense here is a dislike for his "perceived" attitude, not a disagreement with the message.. As long as we can discern between the uniqueness of the personality and the insight of the message we can gain insight from a myriad of sources.. How much wisdom would have been lost over the ages if the message was discarded due to some personality flaw of the messenger.. Personally, i look for the content, not concerned with my personal prejudices of the author.. heck, i have even found insight in some of Earle's stuff.. :)

It is my personal belief that whether "internal or external" we are still working toward the same goal, self-mastery.. it is simply two sides of the same coin.. some people prefer one side or the other, other people see the whole coin..

Be well..

Merryprankster
01-22-2003, 06:38 AM
I tried to read it with a softer eye. I did. Really. I still don't like the tone, or the implications--which is where, again, my annoyance (disgust?) lies.


Since some instructors were unable to complete the entire training in their particular styles, many systems today are incomplete and never go beyond the external level.

This is a non-sequitur. He jumps from "instructors," to "systems." Rather than suggesting that the instructors students may be missing something, all of a sudden whole "systems," are incomplete and never go beyond the external level, which was not explained beyond, external being "low level."

By implication, all external systems out there are incomplete and low level. Why? Because external and internal aren't distinctions made based on type of training focus; According to Hsu, the external systems are incomplete. They never achieve the rarified domain of the internal, where angels sing and beatification is a heartbeat away, and they are therefore, low level.

Now, he may mean something other than what I understand as "external," but I doubt it. I suspect he is using the same general idea most people here do. For instance, Muay Thai is considered very "external," by most people here. I suspect Mr. Hsu would suggest that Muay Thai is low level. I also strongly suspect Mr. Hsu is wrong. Muay Thai is what it is. You might define a practitioner as low level. To define the STYLE as low level is the mark of a pompous ass. Being so "above it all" is certainly not the mark of a person who pursues mastery of the self. So much for the vaunted character benefits of martial training.

It's rather like people who say wrestling is all about attributes, and not principle based execution. They're wrong, and I don't mind saying it. It's to make them feel better about what THEY are doing. A little looking down your nose at others goes a LONG way towards building up the self-esteem of the insecure.

black and blue
01-22-2003, 07:57 AM
I practise Wing Chun, a martial art I see as being both soft and hard.

I have a couple of books by Dr Yang Jwang Ming, one on Tai Chi and how it generates power (a great read), and one on Chi Gung exercies for martial artists (opened my eyes to the variety, and sometimes simplicity, of the exercises).

I really like this man's approach - he doesn't see external as superior to internal or vice versa, but does make clear distinctions with regards how they generate power etc. He says they both get to the same place (in a martial sense), but get there by different paths.

His books are well written and are very open.

The implication, as expressed by this thread's subject, that a martial art such as Wing Chun is 'low level' brings a tear to my eye :D

I would also dare any 'internal stylist' to go up to good Thai Boxer and challenge him with the idea that his art sucked and was lacking :p

count
01-22-2003, 08:20 AM
Well I don't necessarily agree with everything Adam Hsu says and I know he can seem arrogant to some people on first glance, but I think you guys are missing the point entirely. My interpretation is Adam is only commenting on Chinese Martial Arts. And it's true historically that systems were passed on incomplete since one intructor might not have gotten the complete training and passed it on for generatations. As a result some systems are lost or changed focus. Within Liu Yun Chao's (one of Adam's main teachers) school of thought there isn't a difference between internal and external that says one system is this or that. There are only levels and methods of getting there.

Maybe what Yang said might mean the same thing?

All systems of martial arts are internal at the highest level. Except for Wing Chun and Muay Thai. They suck ;)

TaiChiBob
01-22-2003, 08:21 AM
Greetings..

I just attended a two day seminar with Dr. Yang in Hollywood Florida.. He is a knowledgable and easily approachable teacher. His new research and up-coming book should shed a new and insightful light on Chi, its origin, its function and its uses.. particularly on how east and west can resolve their differences of perception of this fundamental element of health and martial arts.. He is eager and willing to demonstrate Internal applications as well as the inherent links between internal and external.. I highly recommend his seminars and his books..

Dr, Yang like most accomplished CMA practicioners recognizes both sides of the coin.. internal and external are interdependent.. one will will not realize the full potential of CMA by choosing sides (an unbalanced perspective).. oops, that last sentence may be liberally sprinkled with my personal opinion..

Be well..

Scythe
01-22-2003, 08:25 AM
I think that there is a place for the external arts and a place for the internal arts. and they should not be compared by one versus the other. The external have a completely different approach to that of the internal. I do however believe that the practice of internal arts is more sophisticated thus higher level than that of for example Muay thai. The internal arts use the body in a more clever way than the external which are more concerned with strength and power where the stronger opponent will always conquer, whilst the internal arts using contact reflex and rerouting of force etc enable a weaker opponent to overcome a bigger stronger opponents with comparative ease. The trouble with external arts is that there is ALWAYS a bigger stronger guy somewhere. I have practiced both types starting with external and moving on to the internal arts and I know which i prefer.

black and blue
01-22-2003, 08:35 AM
Count says:


All systems of martial arts are internal at the highest level

How so... do you mean mechanics, alignment, etc... or do you mean soft, flowing etc (there's just too many floating definitions of the word 'internal') ;)


Except for Wing Chun and Muay Thai. They suck

:mad: That's it, now I have to give you an external punch in the internals :p

Scythe says:


I do however believe that the practice of internal arts is more sophisticated than that of for example Muay thai. The internal arts use the body in a more clever way than the external which are more concerned with strength and power where the stronger opponent will always conquer, whilst the internal arts using contact reflex and rerouting of force etc enable a weaker opponent to overcome a bigger stronger opponents with comparative ease.

Hmmm. Here's my problem. Yes, I think CMA are more sophisticated than Muay Thai - but MT can win out against stronger opponents and is a devestatingly effective method of kicking someone's face in.

Everyone says Wing Chun isn't an internal art (perhaps the power generation is different), but by YOUR definition of external arts above, we don't fit this either. WC is all about 'using contact reflex and rerouting of force etc enable a weaker opponent to overcome a bigger stronger opponents with comparative ease'.

Maybe Wing Chun has the best of both worlds and everything else, including Count, sucks eggs!!!! :D

Merryprankster
01-22-2003, 08:37 AM
The internal arts use the body in a more clever way than the external which are more concerned with strength and power where the stronger opponent will always conquer, whilst the internal arts using contact reflex and rerouting of force etc enable a weaker opponent to overcome a bigger stronger opponents with comparative ease.


The next time our 150 lbs blue belt prodigy gives me a run for my money, or <GASP> beats my 185 lbs purple belt ass...the next time I thrash a skilled 250 lbs opponent, or get *****ed in stand-up by our little Muay Thai based MMA fighter, I'll remember this and giggle.

Principle based execution transcends stylistic boundaries, and relies on positioning, footwork and feel to maximize personal potential.

Internal, external, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Western....doesn't matter. The above applies to all successful practicioners.

Scythe
01-22-2003, 08:45 AM
spose it depends on your definition of internal i would not call Wing Chun an external system, I have great respect for wing chun many people I train with have practiced it for many years,

So is your definition of external giving someone a good slapping, cos surely you can do that with all the arts!:p

Merry Prankster the fights you talk of are within the format of sparring or ring fighting which is a bit different to defeating a larger stronger opponent in real combat;)

black and blue
01-22-2003, 08:55 AM
I don't think I have a definition of internal and external, I just know that I don't agree with some of the definitions I hear or read :p

Wing Chun's a great art, that much I know.

And hey, you don't need ANY art to give someone a good slapping. :)

I know a guy who used to earn money in illegal (what else) bare knuckle fights in and around Sussex. He is huge and fights like an animal... he doesn't understand fighting as an art, he couldn't talk about the dynamics behind what he does, he's just a natural fighter with a big body and no worries about hurting someone badly.

Perhaps that would be the ultimate test of my Wing Chun, to say to him: "Your cr@p, there's no internal work to what you do. LOW LEVEL, MAN... LOOWWW LEEEEEVEEELL."

If I never post here again you'll know I said it! :D :D :D

Merryprankster
01-22-2003, 08:57 AM
I suppose set piece sparring and forms prepare you better than free sparring?

Sigh.


I'll rely on things I've practiced on resisting opponents several thousand times than things I haven't ever really tried.

You enjoy.

count
01-22-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by black and blue
Count says:
>>>All systems of martial arts are internal at the highest level<<<

How so... do you mean mechanics, alignment, etc... or do you mean soft, flowing etc (there's just too many floating definitions of the word 'internal') ;)
Well if I had to pick one it would be the mechanics and alignment. My style, baguazhang, might be considered a so called internal style, but there is little soft to speak of. When you first learn anything it is a stuggle at first to maintain your balance, later it requires less muscle and less thought.


Maybe Wing Chun has the best of both worlds and everything else, including Count, sucks eggs!!!! :D Maybe you are right black and blue? Maybe you could add to the discussion on the wing chun forum about how wing chun can beat bagua? I'm especially interested right now in how wing chun handles the issue of grappling and throwing? I've only fought a couple of guys who did wing chun and neither of them tried to throw or grapple. BTW, I have fought a couple of Muay Thai guys and they didn't try to throw me either. I'm not saying these things don't exist in either of these arts. Just that I havn't seen it. Just curious, I know it's somewhat off topic. Or maybe not? You could PM me.

black and blue
01-22-2003, 09:21 AM
My Wing Chun is limited, I train three times a week, try and meet friends to train with privately (maybe once a week), and do forms, stepping, punching most days, and have been doing so for about 2 years.

I've never seen any throws in Wing Chun, though I'm sure there are people out there who'll tell you they've found them in the forms. :) Maybe they have and I've just not found them yet.

WC, it seems to me, would rather take someone down in other ways. My Sifu does this by controlling the opponent's knee (press or stamp), and I've seen him do this by locking up their knee with his own leg and taking them down from simple leveage and malipulation of the arms or body. (The most painful methods in the Kwoon is surely locking up legs, grabbing a handful of hair and pulling)

We also train against headlocks, headbutts and grabs etc, and fighting from the floor. Chi Sau helps with this as do the myriad hand and legs attacks found in WC.

Hope that helps a little, my WC knowledge is limited. AndrewS and Yuanfen can, at times, give extremely comprehensive answers on WC questions... check with those guys... they've had greater exposure than me.

I've never seen any Bagua, but would love to check it out... if anyone knows of any in London... post a weblink or address.

Cheers

Crimson Phoenix
01-22-2003, 11:14 AM
To be a bit off topic: WC lacks real throws and locks...don't start to flame me, it's just not in the style's requirements, just as high jump kicks are not the requirements of...say...fujian white crane. It's not a criticism, but a fact...

MT, however, should possess several nasty throws and clinching methods (not only designed to ram you with knees). However this part of the art is slowly being forgotten in the west and most of Thailand :(

TaiChiBob
01-22-2003, 11:17 AM
Greetings..

Surely, those of you that have been at this for a good while, have experienced or seen the evolution of technique.. from thinking your way through the physical motions to the effortless execution of well-practiced movements.. I believe that in most cases some awareness of "internal" evolves in any long-time practicioner.. Sure, they don't train in the internal arts, but until someone assigned a name to it, no one did.. Though some of us have chosen to train in CIMA, internal energy and its uses are not exclusive to CIMA.. Even my partner who teaches Muay Thai and JKD admits to sensing a "higher energy" as he gains more experience (and i sense it as well when we spar).. practically any movement or technique can be refined to utilize internal energy.. CIMA has simply focused that refinement into its own Art..

Just another perspective from the Far-side.. Be well..

Laughing Cow
01-22-2003, 02:35 PM
The way I see it:

A "complete" system will take you via external to internal and in the end external and internal wil be mixed and used in conjunction.

Even in internal Arts you first learn the external movements and than learn to rrefine them over the years to use internal concepts.

In my Kwoon we reckon 1 ~ 1.5 yrs just to learn the rough movements of the 1st form.
A lot of those come down and are still very similar to Shaolin moves which form part of our roots.
And, yes, those moves can be used already for fighting in limited fashion naturally.

Adam Hsu does NOT say that an external system is lower or less than an internal system.
The "external & internal" split is very recent development and often very misunderstood.

What he sez if you study a system only for a short time, you will only master the external part but not learn the internal Part.

Example: Xing Yi it was used to train soldiers, but not many of them due to circumstances managed to learn the full system.

Hence we also got those misconeptions that XY = linear, PK = circular, etc.
Each complete system needs to contain hard, soft, circular, straight, different fighting ranges, etc.

External & Internal are not really that different, just different levels of understanding of your style.
Suited to the practicioner at different stages of his study & life

Just my thoughts..

ShaolinTiger00
01-22-2003, 03:17 PM
- abort- - abort- this place smells like patchouli! eject!

Mizong_Kid
01-22-2003, 03:36 PM
Adam Hsu? why do some people here dislike him?

doesnt he teach mizong?

Laughing Cow
01-22-2003, 04:13 PM
Mizong_kid.

Yes, he does among other styles:

STYLES & WEAPONS


Chang Quan: Long Fist Style
Tai Chi Chuan: Grand Ultimate Style
Ba Gua Zhang: Eight Trigram Style
Ba Ji Quan: Eight Infinite Style
Pi Gua Zhang: Splitting Deflecting Style
Mizong Quan: Lost Track Style
Xing-I Quan: Mind Intent Style
Tang Lang Quan: Praying Mantis Style

Sword, Sabre, Spear, Staff

Here is his Web-Site:
Adam Hsu (http://www.adamhsu.com/)

Serpent
01-22-2003, 10:15 PM
Well Merryprankster, sounds like you already have your mind made up. And ShaolinTiger00, you're just an arrogant pr!ck, but I've said that before! :rolleyes:

It's hardly worth trying to explain because you people are completely stuck in your own paradigm. Plus, at the first mention of chi you're going to start puffing and blowing and you'll retreat back into your paradigm. I could try to explain without the word 'chi', because there are various other ways to explain the same thing.

So you tell me; is it really worth trying to explain or are you happy believing you already know it all?

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 02:15 AM
It seems as though YOU already have your mind made up about ME Serpent.

At the risk of trying to nail jello to a tree, explain to me how external and internal are different (I ask again, since you didn't answer the first time). If chi is unnecessary to the explanation, as you insinuate, then it occurs to me that the "difference," between the two--is just a difference in understanding and execution of that understanding. Which suggests that external and internal are useless distinctions when discussing personal growth in use of an art.

Can non-CMA's be internal?

It must be nice to have all the answers like you though, so I could KNOW for certain I had it right.

Laughing Cow--what you say may be true about Mr. Hsu's intent. But that's not what it sounds like from the excerpt given.

FWIW, I've met Shaolin. The only thing he's arrogant about is insisting on a real answer. No fluff, no semantics. That's what happens when you're bluntly honest about your opinions and comments.

Laughing Cow
01-23-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Can non-CMA's be internal?

Yes, it is my belief that they can be.

For me the difference between internal & external is more on the emphasis of certain aspects of training at different stages.

Kinda like the beginning and advanced stages being reversed. Too put it simple.

But that the end-result should be the same.

Just my opinion naturally.

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 03:14 AM
Laughing Cow,

If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA's to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both. Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.

At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.

Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?

How does one classify an internal art?

Laughing Cow
01-23-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Laughing Cow,
If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA's to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both.


Yes, that is the way I see. Many "internal" Arts kinda pre-date the external/internal classification.
The earliest references to neijia are around the end of the 17th Century (3 Articles)
Hsing Yi, Neijia Quan & Chen TJQ trace their origins earlier than that.
Not too sure since when internal concepts were trained at Shaolin Temple thought, but I think they also date earlier.

The actual internal/external bit step came in 1892 when a few Masters of the 3 Internal Arts decided to call their arts as "Neijia".

I see it as a way to promote their art over others.



Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.
At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.
Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?


Yes, that is correct.



How does one classify an internal art?

To be honest I don't think it is possible to do so beyond any doubt..

Here is mine
Waijia (external):
Arts use your current potential and enlarge it, later on than re-train you to use your Body more efficiently..

Neijia(internal):
Train your Body to use the optimum method naturally and than enlarge that one at a higher level.

Of course I am neither an expert nor does my opinion matter in the greater scheme of things.

count
01-23-2003, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA's to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both. Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.

At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.

Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?

How does one classify an internal art?
Ummm, I think you just did. Again, as I said before, Re-read Adam's comments and this will be your conclusion instead of a question. And again, it may be generally true for all arts, as you say, but I think Adam is speaking historically about the evolution of Chinese martial arts. But the best indicator of whether you have been able to "internalize" your own style is, can you do it the same when you are 70 years old? :cool:

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 07:57 AM
Based only upon the excerpt, I draw the conclusion that he's advocating a certain thing as being high-level and another as low-level.

IF he defines internal and external as high-level understanding and execution, vs low-level understanding and execution, then Mr. Hsu and I are essentially in agreement.

IF he defines internal and external as "some styles are internal and some are external and those that are internal are high-level, and those external ones are low-level," then I think he's wrong.

My point is one is a semantics argument--a discussion about terminology. "You say high level of understanding and execution, I say internal, but we're discussing the same thing. The other is a "this is better than that argument because it's just higher level." That, I don't agree with.

Tai Chi is not "higher level," than Thai Boxing. It's different. But it's not "Higher level." People are high or low level. Not arts.

count
01-23-2003, 08:18 AM
—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —
Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung-fu, but rather different levels.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————— —

Tai Chi is not "higher level," than Thai Boxing. It's different. But it's not "Higher level."
People are high or low level. Not arts.
I agree, however I believe that grappling is a higher level than punching and kicking.

Braden
01-23-2003, 09:01 AM
These are not the droids you are looking for.

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 09:01 AM
I've done both. I feel there is a certain magic in each. Different, but amazing when you feel a high level practicioner do it to you.

I realize you were quoting Mr. Hsu, but you also didn't follow up with the part where he says some systems are external now. I'm curious which ones, and how he reached that conclusion.

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 09:08 AM
LOL @ Braden!

count
01-23-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
I realize you were quoting Mr. Hsu, but you also didn't follow up with the part where he says some systems are external now. I'm curious which ones, and how he reached that conclusion.
I didn't see that and I don't have a copy of the original book in front of me. However, I don't think this part says anything about a system being external specifically.

He said "Since some instructors were unable to complete the entire training in their particular styles, many systems today are incomplete and never go beyond the external level."

Doesn't mean the level doesn't exist in the system.

Look, if you read my posts throughout, you will see I have said I don't necessarily agree with everything Adam Hsu says. I'm not here to defend him or to explain his words. But the man has done more to spread accurate information about Chinese martial arts than anyone else I can think of. When I first got interested in Kung Fu back in the 70's, people only thought of kung fu by what Bruce Lee did in the movies. I read Adam's articles, The Sword Polishers Record, in Inside Kung Fu Magazine. When I met him the word was he was strict, arrogant, demanding, critical, holds back the real stuff. I found this to be far from the truth. Even though I was only a beginner, he gave me plenty of hands on attention and was extremely nice and helpful. When I asked him what books to read about kung fu, he only said, "go to the mountain" He didn't try and force his ideas or products like books on me at all. Some people said some pretty harsh things in this thread about him.

a fifteen year old iconoclast railing at everything.

it's an arrogantly written piece of drivel from an elitist who likes to think that what he does is "the best."
He's a 60 year old gentleman who spent a lifetime of personal research and practice who has shared what he has learned freely in classes, seminars and writing. I have some pretty harsh things to say about him too, but for different reasons. People should be more open minded about what he writes. It's not a personal attack but an historical record. True, it's based on his perspective, but if you know his background at all, you'll agree it's a valid perspective whether you agree or not.

Merryprankster
01-23-2003, 10:17 AM
Actually, he says EXACTLY, that some systems (not students, instructors or people) are external and therefore, by his own definition, "low level."

It's possible I'm quibbling about word choice. But words do mean things, or we wouldn't use them.

I stand by my assertion that the excerpt, taken as it is, sounds like the stuff Rorion spouts about GJJ. Or any devotee (brainwashed person) says about their art.

And no, I happen not to believe that IF he truly believes that entire systems are low level because people didn't learn the internal, then that is NOT a valid perspective, regardless of his experience or background.

Ford Prefect
01-23-2003, 11:23 AM
Gotta say that MP has a point. I'd have people I outweigh by a good 40 lbs, manhandle me and the mat like I was a raggedy anne doll. It's hard not be amazed at something like that. Having some KF experience I can completely see how a similar thing can happen in the kwoon, and be explained away as "he has great internal skill".

Serpent
01-23-2003, 05:42 PM
OK, I don't really want to argue with anyone here. I'm sorry if anyone is offended. I know I insulted ST00, but that's just the way I feel about his attitude. *shrug*

A lot on the subject has already been said.

MP, I think you are answering your own question. Progression from the external to the internal is a level of skill attainable in any art. That much is the essence of my argument. If Hsu considers some styles external and low-level then he contradicting himself, but then again, he's like that.

A muay thai or bjj player could have great internal skills. When you see someone execute something with seemingly no effort and absolute control, that's great internal skill.

There is also the subject of chi. Personally I see chi as a combination of breath, mental control and internal energy. ST00 will probably start ranting about patchouli oil again at this point. However, I think it's an extremely valid part of development.

When you see a tennis player striking a rocket-speed ace and they grunt, they are using chi. When a weight lifter hollers as he tries to lift that PB deadlift, he is using chi. We can get into great discussions about it but we probably won't agree. I think that if you don't consider it then you are limiting your development, but that's just my opinion.

No_Know
01-23-2003, 07:59 PM
As it is an opinion it cannot be wrong in as much as it is an opinion. However it references items which are grounded in irrefutable actuals.~

Chi refers to a Chinese word. They had a descent Idea of what they meant when they used it. Just because We don't have that understanding, doesn't allow Us to Assign it meanings we choose. I bring this up along the line of your opinion of what it chi is includes a word the Chinese also have represented breath (oops, and Mind (which could, the way Chinese might be, be used as mental control)).

"When you see a tennis player striking a rocket-speed ace and they grunt, they are using chi. When a weight lifter hollers as he tries to lift that PB deadlift, he is using chi."

I thought that they were Adjusting the internal physical pressue related to a quick shifting of force having to be supported by their musculo-skeletal design.

It seems as though if my lungs are more full I can't move comfortablly as having my lungs less full. It seems as thoughthe tennis players and weight lifters doing the moves you mentioned could damage internal organs with fuller lungs. It seems as though it might be like having college regulation footballs inside you while twisting and stretching--damagto the soter stuff. because when filled with air the lungs become rigid solid objects.

Perhaps.

Internal/External can also be and Might be classifications of training methods. Example: Internal Kung-Fus train with slow movements in the beginning. External Kung-Fus do not tend to train slow movements in the beginning.

If you feel you have to use the buzzwords Internal/External, be aware that they Co-exist Throughout training in varying degrees.

If there is a system that starts out External it could be That the Internal principles which usually come later would not be there in whole from a person who left training before mastering the System. Or someone who was not understanding the Internal principles yet was very good at the first part of that System.

RAF
01-23-2003, 10:24 PM
http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/html/BreHisQi.html



This book is devoted to a topic represented by a single Chinese character, Qi.

Contemporary linguists hold that if a word or concept can be expressed in any one language or dialect it can be translated into any other language or dialect. However, many who have confronted the problem of how to translate the word Qi might challenge this axiom. Qi is a concept that presents students of Chinese culture, Chinese medicine, Chinese martial arts, and a wide range of Chinese traditional arts and sciences with one of the most perplexing challenges they face in pursuit of their studies.


The book begins with an examination of the linguistic and literary roots of the word Qi which stretch back through the shadowy mists of Chinese precivilization. The first chapter includes a survey of concepts from other (non-Chinese) cultures which can be correlated with the ancient Chinese notion of Qi. The authors then trace the development of the concept of Qi through a number of related traditional Chinese disciplines including painting, poetry, calligraphy, dance, medicine, qi gong, and martial arts. The book concludes with an examination of the depth and breadth of Qi as a concept in daily life in China. The book leads readers on an adventure of discovery, demonstrating from many points of view how the ancient Chinese concept of Qi has been employed to interconnect the very roots of culture in one of the world's most enduring civilizations. It presents for the first time in English an exhaustive examination of this ancient metaphysical concept.

Look for it in May of 2001!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to define "internal" without really understanding the complexity of what historically has been meant by Qi is nearly an impossible task and will keep everyone going in circles. These arguments keep coming up over and over again.

Anyone willing to give the text a try and then come back to the board?

I have been mulling over this text for a good 6 months and its been a humbling and awakening experience.

However, don't let it come at the expense of your training. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in Geometry to be a superb pool player. :( :mad: :confused: :rolleyes: :)

Merryprankster
01-24-2003, 06:24 AM
If chi is a chinese word used to connote movement and possibly related to body condition and conditioning, then I have no problem with it. That's something that can be explained in a western or eastern way--which is a difference in terminology.

If you are talking about something that can project force at a distance, create naseau inducing shifts in a persons body, is a mysterious life-supporting energy, or that causes people to shoot lightning bolts out of their arse, then I fundamentally object. That's the Jedi Force, and you can see it again in Episode III. This is the really real world, where small green midgets with large ears don't bounce around like a 5 year old with ADD on speed while wielding swords made of light.

What I have is a problem with people who make internal out to be "special." It's not, if internal skill is what Serpent describes. It's the natural outgrowth of hard work and a little talent, and is clearly not special in any way at all.

Serpent, define internal energy. I'm with you on breath control, and mental control (large part of any combat art/sport).

RAF
01-24-2003, 06:50 AM
I guess what I am really saying is that we ALL have a pretty superficial understanding of what qi means in the historical context of Chinese culture and we toss it around as though we really understand it.

Basically I have suspended my judgements about what I think I know about qi and jings etc. etc. and decided to learn more from a Chinese source that has some credibility.

I don't care about kong jing and all of that. To me it matters as much as if there life on another planet in the Universe. You find it, great but I am not going to sit around speculating and wasting time thinking about galaxies, beings etc. I'll leave that to the science fiction writers. And that is about as much as I am interested in Kong Jing.

Anyone got it, good for you but I want to stay grounded in the training I know and will learn.:eek:

crumble
01-24-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by RAF
I guess what I am really saying is that we ALL have a pretty superficial understanding of what qi means in the historical context of Chinese culture...

I don't know if I buy that statement. I doubt that there is a chinese authority one could go to and get the Real True understanding of what qi is. I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of different usages among chinese authorities, depending on whether the background is martial, medical, musical, etc.

Plus, I think that it's used to refer to something that is pretty loosy-goosy in the first place. I have a feeling that the historical context is one where people used the qi as a catch-all for things like breath, air, coordination, spirit, power, circulation, and ability.

I mean take the western word "Ability". Where is ability? Is it the skillful display of something or is it the something that allows the skillful display? Is it coordination or is coordination part of it? Is in something intangible like grace or spirit? Or is it something biological, something that can be identified by relaxed breathing, desipite all the effort?

Anyway, I don't think the answer to "what is internal" is going to be found in THE understanding of qi. If anything, I think it might be found in an understand of one of the usages of the word qi. But really, I think it's going to be something more mechanical at the core.

For what it is worth, it seems like the people who I tend to trust distinguish between internal and external by a few things:

* the use of the flexing of spine and waist to direct hand movement.

* the repatterning of the body so that a motion's vector can be changed mid-stream without any "gap" in the movement

The last point above seems to be the foundation for the ability to issue a quick shocking power without a lot of external movement and it also is the foundation for sensitivity like push hands.

So having said all of that, I now need to say that I can't do it, so I know I might be wrong. Anyway, I hope it helps out the discussion.

:)

-crumble

Merryprankster
01-24-2003, 09:40 AM
* the repatterning of the body so that a motion's vector can be changed mid-stream without any "gap" in the movement


You mean like when a wrestler shoots a double, has to switch off to a single because of stance issues from the opponent, then moves off to a rear body lock and throws from there? Without any gap in movement?

crumble
01-24-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
You mean like when a wrestler shoots a double, has to switch off to a single because of stance issues from the opponent, then moves off to a rear body lock and throws from there? Without any gap in movement?

It sounds like you are talking about sensitivity and "flow", and that's part of it. But the fact that it seems like your example starts from a non-contact situation... it kinda throws off my thinking.

What I'm talking about is more like what occurs during clinching on on the mat, where you are already contacted and contantly adjusting to the pressure he puts on you. I remember you talking about using pressure and space to get another wrestler in the position you wanted-- it's closer to that.

Actually, on the mat is probably the best example, because there is when you can totally feel if you are posistion with maximum freedom and leverage...

Anyway, if you move the point of contact to just the forearm/hands, it's pretty close to what I'm trying to say. If you can imagine having your alignment all set up so that behind any contact you that feeling of solidity and yet your free to change into any direction... that's what I'm pointing toward.

I mean it should be really obvious, in a way. Bad boxers just shoot out punches. Better boxers can change their punches angle, velocity, they can pull it back and turn it into a block or a deflection. You know what I mean. To be able to change faster than the eye, you need to be all the way in that movement and aware enough to change it in a millisecond.

Let's say you are changing a punch into a block deflection. If there isn't something there when your mind changes from punch to defend, the guy is going to power through your defenses. In a way, you could say that when you change from attack to defend, you are weak unless you already had some "defend" in your "attack" -- I don't know how to say it better. That way there isn't a gap.

Well, does that make sense?

If it kinda does, then I'll try to say a little more, which is really the limit of my own understanding! The way most internal arts are trained (all that slow moving stuff, qi gong, forms...) is to hopefully encourage that connection of attack and defend together.

Whew... I think that's all I can say about it. I'm really talking beyond my skill.

-crumble

Laughing Cow
01-27-2003, 04:27 PM
Hi All.

Here is another definition I once heard on how the internal and external Arts differ.


Take a mountain, the goal of ANY MA style is to get you to reach the Top.
At the top there is NO more technique, NO more style just simple ability and skill to fight.

As you will climb the mountain you will pass through various stages of training and understanding.

Some explain it via a spiraling staircase and that the view will change depending on the students progress up the straicase.

Anyhuh, there are 2 main-roads up this mountain:

1.) External:
This road starts at the bottom of the mountain and goes to the Top.
And is well-mapped and laid out.

2.) Internal:
This road starts somewhere up on the side of the mountain, but you are not giving directions as to where this road exactly starts.

Or something like that.

I thinks this also ties in with what is being discussed to a degree by:
Lao_Peng_You (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271641#post271641)

As I see sparring and the need to test your skill and understanding a part of the process to reach the mountain top.

Any comments, remarks??

Serpent
01-27-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
If chi is a chinese word used to connote movement and possibly related to body condition and conditioning, then I have no problem with it. That's something that can be explained in a western or eastern way--which is a difference in terminology.


Why does it have to be understood ina 'western way'? An eastern perception of things make sit much easier to understand.



If you are talking about something that can project force at a distance, create naseau inducing shifts in a persons body, is a mysterious life-supporting energy, or that causes people to shoot lightning bolts out of their arse, then I fundamentally object. That's the Jedi Force, and you can see it again in Episode III. This is the really real world, where small green midgets with large ears don't bounce around like a 5 year old with ADD on speed while wielding swords made of light.


You're being rather antagonistic here. The difference between your first comment and this one is immense. Surely you realise that you're being argumentative with this statement?



What I have is a problem with people who make internal out to be "special." It's not, if internal skill is what Serpent describes. It's the natural outgrowth of hard work and a little talent, and is clearly not special in any way at all.


Of course internal skill is special. It takes years of training and understanding to develop good internal skill.



Serpent, define internal energy. I'm with you on breath control, and mental control (large part of any combat art/sport).

I'm not sure that I can in the space provided. Nor do I really want to spend that much time trying to convince you of something. Your perception of breath control, mental control, conditioning, experience and so on is a good way to understanding good internal development. I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.

Merryprankster
01-28-2003, 04:04 AM
Serpent,

It's easier for YOU to understand it in an eastern way--good for you. I choose to look for commonality when I can. It makes it much easier to understand things. The "eastern way," is apparently a poorly defined concept called chi whose most miraculous power is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the thing they are attempting to defend at any given moment.

Now, I don't believe chi SHOULD be a nebulous concept. You should be able to talk to people about it without causing their heads to cave in. And there should be some minor consensus on what the hell it is. Unfortunately, that's usually not the case. And it's not even the case when people who "know what chi is," are talking about chi! There are an awful lot of people out there who "know chi" and can't agree on the first **** thing about it! While it is possible that they are ALL correct, that renders discussion -or even contemplation- of the whole idea pointless.

I was NOT being antagonistic. The only way what I said could be construed as antagonistic is if you believe that chi will give you the obviously impossible abilities I outlined. And if you (universal, not personal, you) do believe that, you're a wishful fool of the highest magnitude, and I don't mind saying so.

Otherwise, it's actually just funny.

Generally speaking, this has been a perfectly informative conversation, demonstrating that commonly held "differences," are differences of semantics and NOT substance. At least, that's my takeaway. Tomato, Tomahto... I can call it a train, but we're still talking about the same item.

TaiChiBob
01-28-2003, 05:40 AM
Greetings..

What follows is only my opinion, my understanding....

Suppose someone brings 170 pounds of chemicals, precisely the mixture found in the human body, and asks you make a person, a living human.. missing is "Chi".. Simply, "life energy". Now, how we cultivate and use that energy may refered to in many ways, but... it is One thing... Not so much "magic" as not yet fully understood. Internal addresses the cultivation and use of that energy, external is just happy to have it and doesn't overtly concern itself with its nuances... Neither better or worse than the other, just differing perspectives..

Contrary to either perspective is the arguing and bickering over something so subtle as to defy an accurate definition. Its like debating the taste of food, each person has their preferences, yet we each taste the same thing... To invest as much time and passion in our training as we do in our opinionating could bring us all to a better understanding of the relationship of "internal/external".

To be clear about my own position, i feel that internal principals are not confined to a particular discipline/belief system... that anyone can independently evolve into internal principles... I do feel that a combination of internal/external is the most well-rounded approach to the professed goals of CMA.

Be well..

Liokault
01-28-2003, 08:57 AM
Threads about Chi always go round in circles.

The only thing you learn is that the guys who belive in Chi all belive somthing differant and un-provable.

Serpent
01-28-2003, 05:02 PM
MP,

When spoke about being antagonistic, I was referring to the following:


Originally posted by Merryprankster
If chi is a chinese word used to connote movement and possibly related to body condition and conditioning, then I have no problem with it. That's something that can be explained in a western or eastern way--which is a difference in terminology.

If you are talking about something that can project force at a distance, create naseau inducing shifts in a persons body, is a mysterious life-supporting energy, or that causes people to shoot lightning bolts out of their arse, then I fundamentally object. That's the Jedi Force, and you can see it again in Episode III. This is the really real world, where small green midgets with large ears don't bounce around like a 5 year old with ADD on speed while wielding swords made of light.


There's a lot of ground between movement and body conditioning and shooting lightening bolts from your arse. Somewhere in the middle is a better description of chi.

Indeed, these arguments are always circular. The fact that you need a definition that is absolute and watertight shows the nature of western thinking. It requires black and white with no shades of grey.

I'm sure that in the process of this whole discussion there is more common ground than not, and I'm sure that you have at least the beginnings of an understanding of chi from an eastern perspective.

Perhaps, for now, that's the best we can hope for.

Let me ask, do you do any form of meditation, yoga or anything like that?

Merryprankster
01-28-2003, 09:05 PM
Actually, serpent, the dialectic is the only thing that requires something to be absolutely either/or. I personally don't buy that, and am perfectly comfortable with shades of gray. After all, it turns out that our reality is, mathematically speaking, varying shades of gray. There is no such thing as scientific determinism. It is defunct as a useful or accurate model.

So to pigeonhole western thought as requiring bifurcation in the form of a dialectic is a bit shortsighted. It's also a tad bit snotty.

Why is it that western science and philosophers are perfectly comfortable discussing shades of grey but I'm being told we're not comfortable with the idea....

And no I don't do any meditation. I don't particularly feel the need. And I suppose that this is a precious little trap set for me, so I'll spare you the "AHA" and bow out of the conversation as I, once again, cannot get a straight answer from anybody. Although I have to say that Tai Chi Bob raised THE most interesting and perhaps relevant idea on the thread with the bundle of chemicals vice life concept. Worth thinking through.

Laughing Cow
01-28-2003, 09:18 PM
MP.

Look at the Tai Chi vs Wing Chun (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19104)

Plenty of "chi" being discussed in there, and definitions are also given.
Just overlook the normal bickering.

Granted from a TCM point of view, but it might help.

Cheers.

P.S.: Look for one of my posts.

Serpent
01-28-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
And no I don't do any meditation. I don't particularly feel the need. And I suppose that this is a precious little trap set for me, so I'll spare you the "AHA" and bow out of the conversation as I, once again, cannot get a straight answer from anybody. Although I have to say that Tai Chi Bob raised THE most interesting and perhaps relevant idea on the thread with the bundle of chemicals vice life concept. Worth thinking through.

No, not a trap. I was genuinely interested.

Here's a hypothetical. Say I've never been in love. You claim to be in love. I want you to define exactly what it is to be in love, how it happens, what effect it has and provide some proof to back all of this up. Do you think you could do that?

I too think that Tai Chi Bob rased an interesting perspective.

Firebird
01-29-2003, 04:36 AM
In Germany we don't have much traditional Kung Fu schools therefore we don't have so much choice between the styles and schools like in USA or Canada or Australia.
Not everyone of the 'sifus' of the schools also knows the inner side of their Kungfu style.
I think they never learned, or they didn't know that their style also has an internal side or they
doesn't want to teach it to all their students.

If someone has no experience with Martial Arts, and wants to study Shaolin Kung fu only wants to learn nice technics and movements. He doesn't know that every style has both internal and external.
The most ' Real Shaolin Kung Fu' schools i saw, didn't teach the internal side ; only a few.

The most Tai Chi People I saw , also don't know that every style has both and when they saw a Shaolin Performance they didn't see the rooted movements.
Only the ones who practice since some years regulary every day, at least one hour saw the difference.

All say, these are were my own experiences, maybee You see it in a different way.

Merryprankster
01-29-2003, 05:59 AM
Fair enough Serpent; I overreacted. Apologies!

Serpent
01-29-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Fair enough Serpent; I overreacted. Apologies!

No worries, man. As someone else said, this is always a circular subject at best!

Serpent
02-25-2003, 08:37 PM
TTT as this was mentioned in another discussion.

:)