Here's what I consider to be the difference between internal and external

[Mr. Nemo]

A running debate amongst kung fu stylists is what exactly constitutes "internal" kung fu from "external." Many different explanations are heard: some say that internal styles use more yielding, or that they use chi (whatever that means), or that external styles are called external because they have their roots in the martial arts of bodhidharma (an indian, from outside china) rather than from inside china.

I think that the debate over the difference between internal and external has gotten too esoteric and complicated. Here's what I consider to be the difference between the two:

Imagine that you are a chinese martial artist, circa a hell of a long time ago. To help you get into character, it will help to forget everything you may have picked up from modern science about physiology, body mechanics, and so on.

You have two fighters in front of you - just for fun, we'll call them Nei and Wei. They have the same height, the same build, are the same age, and weigh the same amount. However, when Nei delivers a certain type of blow, it hits very hard. When Wei delivers the same blow, it doesn't hit as hard.

The two punches appear identical when watched. They're thrown from the same angle, both of them appear to use the entire body to deliver force, and they both are thrown at the same speed. Why, then, does one hit so much harder than the other?

Since the external (obvious, visual) qualities of the two punches are the same, the explanation for the difference in power delivered must lie on the inside - and so, the ancient chinese developed the concept of "internal skill." Nei has more internal skill than Wei, so his punches hit harder.

Felix Trinidad is a skinny guy with skinny arms. He doesn't look like a knockout puncher. There are probably a hundred puerto ricans whose build, body type and musculature are next to identical to his. But if you ask one of them to throw a left hook that on the outside looks almost identical to Trinidad's, theirs won't hit half as hard. Why? If you the ask the chinese guys in the above example, they'll say that it's because Trinidad has more internal skill than the other puerto rican guy they pulled off the street.

Internal and external represent two different levels of accomplishment. A student will start training the external qualities of a movement first - that is, what part of the body goes where and when. Once the students knows that part, he or she learns the internal qualities - how to deliver that blow with power. Nearly any martial art becomes internal once the practicioner has reached a high level.

As for how some styles came to be known as "external" and some as "internal," I don't know. Maybe someone here knows and will post the reason. Nowadays when we say "internal style," we're usually talking about tai chi, bagua, or hsing-i (or liu he ba fa, for those that have heard of it). However, no style or group of styles have a monopoly on internal skill.

[dedalus]

The standard historical account of the distinction is that the internal arts are based on taoist philosophy and practices, whereas the external arts arise from buddhist philosophy and practices. Other differences follow from this.

Taoism originated in China itself (hence its internal label) whereas Buddhism's roots are in India (hence external).

Was Mr Nemo playing possum on this one?

[Kung Lek]

It was a mistake to make the comparison in the first place :D

Lao Tzu once said "We can neither call it void or not void, but for the purpose of pointing it out, we will call it void"

the India / China thing was made up here in the west, it fits no where in any of the texts that I have seen. This statement just lends more over-mystification to the point at hand.

If you start with "internal exercises" they will lead to "external usage" if you do external you will internalize.
The are the same thing from different approaches.
To over intellectuallize them will only confuse them more. they are folds in the same piece of cloth. You are the cloth.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[Braden]

Mr. Nemo - I'm one of those guys who believes there actually are some unreconcilable differences between the internal and external arts. Although I'll agree that "external" and "internal" are misleading names for them, since "external" arts can and do contain a rich variety of "internal" exercises; just as "internal" arts can and do contain a rich variety of "external" exercises - but they are nonetheless very different arts (or so I would argue).

Have you done any rooting exercises with your qigong postures yet?

[Stumblefist]

"If you start with "internal exercises" they will lead to "external usage" if you do external you will internalize."
That's what i'm always saying. Like try doing push-ups without any spirit. Or do them long enough, you will internalize.
...

"It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me"

[Repulsive Monkey]

Quite wrong, you do not train in internal erts do you? You missed have missed all the reasons why some arts are internal and some are external. Qi is intergral to Internal arts and by dismissing it you atuomatically render your arguments facile. And wherever you got the idea that at a certain stage ALL externals arts become internal is ludicrous.

[Ming the Merciless]

there definately are differences. Although I think it is funny how a lot of internal stylists think their art is superior to external arts just because they are studying something internal. It all leads back to the old is it the fighter or the art arguement....

[Wongsifu]

welll..... the way i see it is that most martial arts start out external and end internal wereas others start out internal from the beggining , internal just means they utilize chi in their attacks.
Its a lot more complex than that but thats how it basically is.

You see even when you bodybuild you send chi to the body part or someone maybe born with excessive power in his arms, like my father his arms hav ethe power of popeye in them, does it mean its his chi ? not really but it could be :)

what do bin laden and general custer have in common????
They're both wondering where the fu(k all of those tomahawks are coming from. - donated by mojo

[Stumblefist]

"Quite wrong, you do not train in internal erts do you? You missed have missed all the reasons why some arts are internal and some are external. ...ALL externals arts become internal is ludicrous."
..
Which "ert" wold you be talking about there the in-ert or the ex-ert or the introv-ert? I am a big fan of erts.
...
I know your argument, but we disagree.

Ludicrous? yeah well that's probably because god likes to laugh a lot, especially when he was making our bodies..

"It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me"

[Kung Lek]

The "differences only exist in the stage of development the practitioner is at.

Here is an example- 5 animals Kung Fu- starts out with tiger moves through Crane, then Leopard, then snake then finally to dragon. after much practice the internal power of the dragon manifests itself in all the preceeding.

so, they are not seperate in the least, the are just different "starting" points to understanding the nature of power (Kung).

If you do Tai chi martially, the application is external with the foundation of power coming from within.

To complicate it all with seperation of yin (empty) and yang (full) leads to an even longer learning curve :D

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[MonkeySlap Too]

Those that think they understand internal arts are internal, and everyone they disagree with is 'external'.

Of course since almost no one agrees, everyone is pretty much 'external'. ;)

I am a big beleiver in luck. The more I work, the more luck I have.

[Shaolin Master]

No Internal No External No South No North.
All is "Relative" rather than absolute.

[Yin Chuan]

Well here goes..I remember seeing in a martial arts magazine about a year or so ago a Chinese man demonstrating chi gong(sp?)..I remember seeing this man doing what was called swallowing his breath I beleive and he was able to extend his stomach to a point that it looked as though he had swallowed a bowling ball..I thought to myself "how odd" and wondered what type of application this could have martial/health...I dont believe an application was given just a demenstration of these internal exercises.I basically forgot about the article until one Day I witnessed my judo instructor while talking about the value of abdominal training open his gi top and lo and behold demonstrate the very same thing!Now this is a man who has been practicing judo since the late 40's early 50's and the way he said he developed this was from alot of matwork on the ground and also leg raises(alot of them).The application was when he had you on the ground he he would literally use his stomach to punch you or sort of as a weopon because he could retract and extend his stomach at will and believe me being on the recieving end of a real nose grinder this ability is affective.He also had one of the guys stand on his stomach to demnstrate the power of his abs(he's 73 years old).Now Im not an expert on internal arts but I do know that he is a person who is slight in build but able to generate alot of power in his techniques(its amazing to me).I guess thats why they call judo the gentle art although I wonder when being thrown or submitted on the mat!

[Braden]

External methods become "internalized" with lots of practice. EXTERNAL ARTS train "internal" concepts like spirit, chi (whatever that is), visualization, breathing, etc, as well as "external" things typically associated with the "internal" arts like alignment, relaxation, and yielding.

However, this does not mean that they train the same things the INTERNAL ARTS do. The EXTERNAL ARTS might become "internal" at high levels, but that does not mean they contain the same skills as the INTERNAL ARTS.

The names are misleading; perhaps it would be better to call them category A arts and category B arts. But the logic is pretty simple... train differently and you develop different skills.

I'm not asserting that one method is superior; only that they are different. It has nothing to do with what level you are at. In analogy, someone who's really good at baseball doesn't suddenly become a great soccer player as well.

This is the same kind of faulty reasoning that has kungfu people believe they are skilled at groundfighting (for example) just because they feel it is within the philosophy/principles of their art, but when they never practice it! You get good at what you do. Simple. If you want the skills of the internal arts, train in the internal arts.

[Kung Lek]

if you diligently practice anything, you will get good at it, no matter what anyone may tell you.

Experience beats theory every time, hands down.

But, with CMA, the external leads to the internal and vice versa in virtually all systems of Martial Arts.

If this is not the case then it is the teacher who is incomplete.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[Mr. Nemo]

Repulsive Monkey: I train in bagua, an "internal" art. I didn't dismiss chi, I just didn't want to bring it into the argument because the word "chi" means so many different things depending on who you ask and I thought using the word would just confuse the issue.

Since you claim I've missed all the real differences between internal and external, what do you consider to be the real differences?

Braden: What are the irreconcilable differences between internal and external arts? If they're prohibitively hard to explain, you don't have to, but I'd like to know.

Concerning rooting and qigong, could you give an example of what you mean? We do a lot of things in our qigong, some of which could be considered a rooting exercise.

"Those that think they understand internal arts are internal, and everyone they disagree with is 'external'."

Monkeyslap Too is way too correct.

By the way, I didn't just pull this stuff outta my a$$ - I've picked it up from reading and listening to the words of internal and external stylists with 10+ years of experience.

Kung Lek: When you say internal leads to the external and vice versa, what do you mean by "internal" and "external"? Could you give an example? I feel like part of the problem with discussing this issue is that the terms are so murky, they render any debate almost useless.

[Braden]

Kung Lek - I agree with the first part of that post. That's my whole point. External stylists aren't practicing the same things internal stylists are - so what makes you think they'll somehow "magically" get good at it? Of course, vice versa is also true.

As for the second part, I've heard this claimed many times, but I've never seen or even heard of any example of an external art becoming an internal art at high levels. Perhaps you could provide an example.

Mr. Nemo - Specifically, have you practiced "accepting force" with neither "resisting" nor "yielding" energy? Another way of putting it is "resisting" without using muscular tension - in the sense that you are not moved, but you do not fight against it.

[Kung Lek]

Ok-

an example would be (besides the 5 animal example I gave earlier).

Let's say a Karate student. Starts and is very rigid, moves rigidly, steps rigidly and strike rigidly. There is force in the strikes, but no penetrating power.

Over time, as the kata become ingrained and the motion becomes second nature in the application, the karateka discovers that it requires less "effort" to achieve the objective. THe energy used to perform kata is the same energy used to walk down the street. THere is fluidity in the mechanics and the power flows from each strike because of the "relaxed" qualitis of the practice.
As the channels open further and further, what was once "external" becomes internal, force and power are not apparent to the person who watches, but the karateka slices through brick like butter using the relaxed and correct mechanics of his own body and the power generated.

On the other side of the coin, a tai chi student begins and in the beginning, mistakenly assumes that "relaxation" is relaxation of musculature and appears "lazy" in motion. Over time, the tai chi student starts to realize that force comes with a little more exertion than has been practiced and starts to put a little force into the strikes. over time. balance is achieved and optimal force is delivered through balance of exertion and relaxation.
once again, the breath pattern is normal and natural and akin to the same breath pattern as is in the unconcious act of walking.

strikes have power with optimum expenditure of energy derived on the shape of the practitioner.

At the apex, the tai chi is not lazy, nor is it rigid, it is optimal delivery of power as well as optimal use of the body in absorption (swallow and spit).

It is only with practice that this realization comes to the prac. whether the practitioner does karate, kung fu, tai chi or any martial art.

Is this close enough to what you are asking? Or do I need to further define it?

peace

this is a great example of a decent topic!

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[Ky-Fi]

In general I share Kung Lek's opinion, but I think Braden is making some valid points.

One general point I would make is that if you've only studied EITHER an internal or external style, or if the sources you're quoting haven't studied both in depth, then I would take that opinion with a grain of salt. For me, at least, the opinions of masters who have spent a lifetime studying BOTH internal and external styles carry much more weight and much less uniformed bias.

Again, part of the problem we always have with arguments like this is that we're all working with different definitions of the basic terms. As my teacher defines them, external arts are those which train the strength, speed and combat techniques first, and later on focus on qi-dominant training and techniques. Internal arts focus on developing qi ciculation first, and later on apply that to the physical combat techniques.

So, as I've been taught, it's not so much a case that internal arts become external, and vice-versa----it's that hard arts gradually become softer, and soft arts gradually become harder. But, as Braden said, this is not to imply that all arts are going to end up in the exact same place. Certainly hard styles aren't going to have the same depth of soft techniques if they haven't been training them for their whole career. And, soft styles do not have the goal of using techniques as "hard" as beginners in hard styles would use. These are all just broad generalizations.

I think if you start to look at the incredible range of CMA---not just between styles, but between different lineages of the same style, and different teachers of the same lineage, then these "internal"/"external" generalizations become so broad that they're virtually meaningless. From the brief amount of White Crane I've studied, I would say that the softer qigong and combat techniques are very similar in theory, depth and subtlety to the Taiji I've learned. It's classified as an external style, but I would be hard pressed to define at as either a soft or hard style.

Again, I agree that different styles have some very different training methods and goals, and every CMA style will not automatically give you the same results just by virtue of studying it long enough-----but I think it would be more useful to compare the specific training methods and curriculum of different styles---say Hung Gar vs. Chen Taiji----rather than wasting much time on "internal" vs. "external".

[Mr. Nemo]

Braden:
"Specifically, have you practiced "accepting force" with neither "resisting" nor "yielding" energy? Another way of putting it is "resisting" without using muscular tension - in the sense that you are not moved, but you do not fight against it."

Well, I haven't used those terms, but it sounds like the you're referring to what I would call the skill of being dead weight. When someone is trying to push or throw me, I don't yield or resist (generally), I just try to become the equivalent of a 185-odd lbs. sandbag - very hard to move. Of course, sometimes you want to be live weight - it takes experience to know when being dead weight is appropriate.

I've never practiced what you describe in qi gong, but I have practiced it in sparring (and in push hands, back when I did tai chi).

Kung Lek:
Thanks for the examples. It sounds to me like you're defining external as tense and internal as relaxed, and the goal is to find a happy medium between the two. Or that relaxed force needs a certain amount of tension or vice versa to be effective. If this is what you are saying, then I can see the distinction, but what you describe isn't what I consider to be the difference between internal and external. What you describe sounds more like the difference between hard and soft. (Again, these are all my terms, you can use your own terms).

Let me state again that the distinction I made between internal and external doesn't concern "internal styles" vs. "external styles," it concerns two different kinds of skill.

[Yin Chuan]

What you just described we were just practicing Saturday.We reviewed some videos of high level tournament judo players and they were doing just that,accepting the other players force and leading them into a throw.Not resisting anything the other person did but applying tension at the right time to where BAM the other person was thrown without even realizing what had happened.My coach can control you just by a slight push or tug on your gi and before you know it you are in an unbalanced position wheras we beginners are tugging and pulling and yanking and expelling massive amounts of "external" force just trying to off-balance the other person.Again I know little about internal arts but what specific techniques would be practiced differently in an art such as Pa Kua than in a more external art?

[Braden]

Kung Lek - I don't disagree with anything you said, I just don't characterize INTERNAL ARTS as being defined by the "internalization" process you described. Obviously, this kind of progress (as well as the specific example of relaxed, correct mechanics) are hallmarks of skill in any martial art (as well as many non-martial arts). The INTERNAL ARTS are so-classified because of other things.

Ky-Fi - I pretty much agree with you. Actually, rather strongly. I would add only that the orthodox internal styles seem to be dispropotionately more similar to one another and less similar to the so-called external styles - thus engendering a sort of loose classification. However, this does not override the actual truth of all arts being different - or, simply, "You develop the skills you train," as I believe you were arguing.

Mr. Nemo - The basic exercise goes like this: Stand in a posture, preferably single-weighted (really it can be anything, so long as your "postural details" are correct; so qigong stances are ideal; we use what we sometimes incorrectly call our "guard stance" which is similar to santi); have someone apply force at any place on your body at any angle (start fairly non-ballistically and not too much force, but it should be a reasonable push - with more skill get more ballistic and more forceful; note that some angles/positions on your body are MUCH more difficult to do than others); practice "accepting" the force (the basic reflex most people have are to "resist" force by tensing up, or to "yield" force by pulling away/retreating; most martial arts refine these mechanics, however the internal arts seek to replace them with a new reflex); you should be able to resist the force in the sense that you are not moved, yet you should not tense up; to test this, have your partner suddenly remove the force, you should not "bounce back", of course you should also just be able to tell introspectively and sometimes even by watching your muscles. The hardest part about doing this is simply relaxing (ie. getting rid of that pesky "resist" reflex) so your structure can do the work; you also of course have to have good structure according to the guidelines of your internal art, and you will find yourself doing small "internal" adjustments to root the force down into the ground; I find my calves tense up noticably as the force goes through them, which could be a sign of my inexperience or could be normal, I'm not sure.

You don't have to actually do this drill to develop this skill. It is perhaps the fundamental skill in the internal arts. However, I find that doing it is an extremely useful "touchstone" to remind your body what it should be doing. There are also many more advanced drills you can do once you get the hang of this, that more and more begin to approximate real combat - notably, you can practice "stealing" bits of your opponents force while "rooting" it and using them to cause your body to move, which results in "yielding the internal way."

But of course... this is all just my experience, so I'm probably wrong about alot of things. But hopefully I kind of make sense.

[Braden]

Point being... while external styles clearly develop advanced relaxed, efficient mechanics; I've yet to meet or speak with an external stylist that has developped THAT particular relaxed efficient mechanic, and has it present in all of his martial abilities. Of course, any good martial artist should still exhibit the springy, connected, holistic movement that you can test with a similar drill.

Although, this isn't actually how I distinguish (loosely speaking, RE: Ky-Fi's point) the internal styles; it just is easier to explain and so far has been accurate.

[Mr. Nemo]

Thanks for the drill info, Braden. It was very clear. I've never done that specific drill before, but I've had contact with the ability it develops.

I agree that internal (three sisters) styles are different from other kung fu styles, and that they will lead you to a different kind of skill and will lead you to be a different kind of fighter. However, I don't think the difference can be described in terms of internal vs. external by any definition of those terms that I've seen so far. I think the difference lies more in the specifics of fighting tactics and training, as I think Ky-Fi means to say. I like Braden's idea of calling them "A styles" and "B styles" or something, because I agree there is a difference; however, calling them "internal" and "external" styles is misleading.

[Wongsifu]

the thing i find weird is that people try to quantify the internal useing an external scale to measure on !!!

External relies on strength speed .

Internal relies on jing chi

its this simple , just because we cannot comprehend chi as chi , why try to explain chi as hidden dense muscular strength...

what do bin laden and general custer have in common????
They're both wondering where the fu(k all of those tomahawks are coming from. - donated by mojo

[Stumblefist]

Kung Lek is correct.There is only one body.
What do all these people get out of compartmentalizing physical experience? What's their payoff? Some sort of psychological boost?
It's just words. Use them to take in, not exclude.

"It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me"

[Kaitain(UK)]

The martial artists that cleaned up Beijing were all internal stylists (Bagua, Hsing-i and Taiji)

BUT

they were all accomplished 'external' stylists first - they used the internal arts to fine tune what they already knew.

I strongly disagree that external arts get to the same place eventually on their own. You have to be shown and told this stuff - it doesn't come on it's own.

To me it's like knowing how to count to ten and add numbers - then someone comes along and shows you logarithms and you respond 'very good, but I had the numbers all along'.

Having said all that, in this day and age there is a lot of sharing of information and knowledge. I think it likely that a lot of styles have some internal knowledge incorporated in them - enough to make the transition.

I don't know any good internal artists who didn't study an external style first - maybe you can make an internal style work for you without having any previous training, but it'll be ****ed hard.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[dedalus]

Actually, I'd agree with Kaitain that a romp in an external art can be a good prelude to the internal ones. It isn't necessarily so, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have taken a few hits and learnt some punching/kicking basics. Perhaps you can also better see the good stuff that's on offer (esp. true if you try to mix it up with a master).

The caveat (I believe) is that you've got a lot of un-learning to do if you switch to an internal art after a long time, and by then there's a large investment to be written off.

[Kumkuat]

who were those people that cleaned up Beijing? I know Chen Fake was one, and he was pure internal since he came from the Chen Village. A romp in external arts before internal? Not really necessary espeically for xing yi. Besides, a few months of dilligent and *correct* practice with a qualified teacher will get you the basic jing skills you need. Then all you need to do is learn how to use that jin skills for fighting.

I think it would just take around the same amount of effort and time as external arts provided that you have a great teacher (which is rare for internal arts). The hard part, as dedalus said, is to unlearn everything you know.

[GLW]

Memory may be faulty...but wasn't it Dong Haichuan who refused to accept a student unless they already had a master of another art like a northern fist.... He viewed his art as graduate level training.....

[bamboo_ leaf]

http://sunflower.singnet.com.sg/~limttk/neijing.htm

good site. explains many things very clearly
and also clears up many misconceptions
IMHO.


return to the wheel of life, not ready yet

bamboo leaf

[SevenStar]

WaterDragon and I had this discussion over the weekend. Another difference would be the internal mechanics of the internal styles, such as coiling.

"Just because I joke around sometimes doesn't mean I'm serious about kung-fu.
" - nightair

[Kaitain(UK)]

has an external form as well as the internal 'Yin' form - you use internal principles within it but it is very clearly a Shaolin type form

What I'm getting at is that the internal styles are fairly esoteric unless you have a knowledge of ballistic fighting - both receiving and delivering.

You don't have to unlearn anything - all of the concepts I know are still valid within Taiji. I've just learned to be soft as well.

I've still to meet a good internal stylist that didn't train the external first. Those that I've met and pushed hands/sparred with that were pure internal had no concept or understanding of fighting.

As I said, you don't have to have studied an external art - but it definitely helps if you want to be effective with the internal art.
-------------------------------------------------

I know very little about Shaolin styles - but I believe that there is an understanding of coiling and fa-jing within Shaolin. Certainly I've read a book by a Shaolin monk who explained all the parallels and differences.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[Repulsive Monkey]

I'm only quoting text here when I say that Chen style Cannon Fist forms were almost entirely external before Chiang Fa brought the internal aspects to it, you out of Tradition Chen does still retain bits of obvious external practice.

I still stand by the comment I made earlier about not agreeing with all external arts eventually become internal, I still do think this is erroneous.I've met Karate Black belts who have claimed to practice at an internal level in their arts because they are advanced, yet their idea of internal and dynamically relaxed was just this side of solid tension. When I explained how relaxed one can be in an internal art they were quite anxious about releasing that amount of tension and visibly looked quite vulnerable too. As advanced as they were their definitely was definitely not Internal as far as Qi development and usage is concerned.

[toddbringewatt]

Mr. Nemo,

I find your argument very interesting and well crafted. You are obviously quite bright.

What if the developement from ext to int involves the developement of chi without the ext practitioner realizing he is developing it?

I think this could be a major factor.

Additionally, I think the more one does any activity the more he graduates from having any attention on the mechanics of that activity and the more he becomes skilled at directing his intention into that activity which yeild results which pure mechanics never can.

And I think inarguably chi is guided by intention.

Perhaps the biggest single factor in any activity, fighting or not is simply intention.

I find that when one's intention is directed toward an effect without any doubts or reservations of any kind, the effect simply occurs and the mechanics take care of themselves.

But in learning the mechanics of an activity the more one can free his attention from the mechanics and then therefore the more attention he has free to put into his intention.

Intention is cause. Everything else in between, i.e. between cause (intention) and effect (result), is simply noting down what happened. Mechanics is just merely what lies between cause (the fighter's intention) and effect (the defeated opponent) -- external or internal regardless.

I think the internal arts simply put more focus on the subject of intention and the kinds of mechanics that most free one's attention from the subject of mechanics altogether.

Make any sense to you? I'm curious what you think about this.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Repulsive Monkey]

When you put forward the idea that maybe an externalist could without knowing and by accident train himself internally were you serious???
This isone of the reasons that people try to seek out accomplished Internalists as the correction and methodology is exacting. I would think that it is near impossible to train internally by accident or without knowing it. For one where's the intent if it's done unknowingly?

[Kung Lek]

repulsive monkey, do you think of your steps when you walk?

People can and do manifest ability without recognizing they are doing so.
Have you heard of "natural" Chi Kung?

Things we do inately which are either opening channels in our meridians or unblocking stoppages?
This occurs with each of us, whether we practice it as an art or not.

compartmentalization of these concepts is what will stunt the ability to make use of them.
awareness is one thing, actually doing is another.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[Braden]

Intention is an important part of the internal arts, but it's not what makes an internal art. And this is the main problem in these kind of discussions. People think an internal art is one with "internal training" - ie. intention, visualization, relaxation, posture, yielding, breathing, chi, whatever. That simply isn't the case. Every good art trains these things.

[bamboo_ leaf]

I used to believe the same things, but at this time I would say no.

I think there may be many similarities to what is called internal but I would find it hard to believe with out some type of training or way of capturing the idea that a person could develop it by him/her self.

Look at the many ideas of (peng) ward off jing. Most people use rooting and some type of resistance to demonstrate this. This is very different from what I have come to believe and develop in my own training.
I think this really brings into question the original intention of TC and TC used as a MA, as suggested by some on the devleopment of the Chen style.

return to the wheel of life, not ready yet

bamboo leaf

[dedalus]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That just isn't the case [/quote]

Dude, you're starting to write like a philosopher... David Chalmers must be rubbing off :p

[toddbringewatt]

Kung Lek,

Thanks.

Braden,

I never said intention is what makes an internal art.

You would find the following link very interesting I think: www.shenwu.com (http://www.shenwu.com)

Read Timothy Cartmell's short bio there. He has a wonderful workable definition for what an "Internal" art is.

Let me know what you think.

"Bruce Leroy. That's who!"

[Sharky]

it's all jizz if you ask me

All i wanted was some RICE CAKES! Now? WE MUST BATTLE.

[Braden]

Bruce - I know you didn't. I love almost everything Tim says, but I disagree with his definition of internal.

[jun_erh]

in "The Tai Chi Boxing CHronicle"(pg 131) Chan Seng Feng (sp.?) says it is wisest to enter the gates of Shaolin first, then you will have it's strength, before tai chi. He and the other creators of tai Chi had peerless Shaolin. "first shaolin and then change" make what you will of that (it 's a modern translation)
"Emotion is a big part of my game" Roger Clemons, who thinks of his deceased mother when he is in a tough spot in a game.
Kung Lek, I've never heard that interpretation of the five animals, that it somehow "starts" at Tiger then moves to Dragon. How is a snake or a leopard more "internal" than a tiger? I use the above (clemons) to illustrate that "spirit" is as "external" as anyhting else.

:confused: