Definition and history of "internal"?

[Mr Punch]

Didn't you Ross, or somebody, write some really good article about the use of "internal" having been relatively recent and some history relating to that?

If so, would you be so good as to point me to it?

While we're at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining "internal" (again!:rolleyes: ) please go ahead!

I'll have a go:

An internal art is an art that concentrates predominantly on training core principles which do not have a focus on purely physical attributes like speed, strength and technique, but more on mental attributes, spiritual attributes or indiscernible physical attributes like small connective muscle tissue between tendons.
God****, that's boring! Someone else want a go?!:D

[Chief Fox]

I look at internalizing an art a little differently and maybe a bit simpler.

To me an internal art is one that has become a part of you. You don't have to think, you just do. The whole concept of "no mind". You have become so intimately familiar with a style or practice that it just turns on when you want or need it to.

[David Jamieson]

I think there is a great deal of terminology thrown around in martial arts that is not siginificantly supported by practical demonstration that is measureable.

concepts as opposed to principles can lead to a washout of the reality of the situation and instead send us trapsing down a garden path.

in my opinion, if you are practicing a martial art, no matter what you call it, it should have martiality at it's core and principles that drive to results from the training method.

all goals should be objective based, all methods should be results based, period. It doesn't matter what you call it if it delivers through it's methodolgy the goals it claims to meet.

From a personal observational standpoint, I don't give to much weight to seperation of internal and external, as far as I'm concerned they are the same thing when it comes to definig a human being. For all the awareness you have of yourself outwardly, there should be a matching awareness to what's going on inside you. If you look at so called external arts, the goal is reduction of forces to find the optimum, if you look at so called internal arts, if they were totally internal as implied, the entirety of the art would be simply sitting and examining the inward self and there would be no motion, only focus on the manifestation of energies from within.

so the argument is a lame duck from the onset.

too often we have all said some reference to something that we in all honestly cannot define properly. Methods are methods, but understanding them in teh truest sense of the word will only come from the work you put into them.

[Wong Ying Home]

I seem to recall that the historically there was no distinction betwen internal and external at all.

That it was more a term created by a well known Tai Chi Master teaching in Beijing to differentiate himself from the more ...er lower class thug mentatlity...thereby attracting more scholar type people who had money and would pay more for tuition that on the face of it was promoted as being of a higher social class martial art.

All chinese arts at a higher level must be of equal balance or they are only ming jing mid level skill

[Ray Pina]

The idea of internal goes back a long, long way. Back to internal alchemy. When taoists realized they were dying, not becoming immortal, ingesting lead and mercury. This lead to internal alchemy ... the discovery of the channels and how to run them to cleans the system. It lead to finding the original way ... the difference between the way you carry yourself after sitting at your desk for 8 hours and eating McDonalds and the way you carry yourself and hold yourself upright and walk bare footed on grass.... there's a difference. When you feel it you realise one way is healthier, so you do what you can to maintain healthy body and mind.

Now, if you're a martial artist, this thinking carries over into your training.... do I need to beat my hand against stone to make it strong? How strong does a fist have to be to hurt? What if my stone hand comes in contact with someone's titanium leg? That's a futile way to train.

Did someone mention Coutier conditions himself very well? Can he condition himself like the young man doing the same thing as him? Apparantly not.

Internal is something different. Many will dismiss it. Many will be mislead. Many will say what it is having only heard what it is from someone else who probably doesn't know what it is either.

You have to feel it. You have to train it. And it's like money, you can build it up but you can exhaust it to. For me at least, it's a day to day process. Pretty much like my bank accont. Some days I got more than others .... and because I'm young and frivolous I can be wasteful.

[Judge Pen]

I've read that the true definition of internal and external was geography. Internal arts are those that were wholly indigenous to China. External arts were developed based upon concepts and principles introduced to the Shaolin Temple by an outsider-- Da Mo.

I don't know if that is true, but as DJ said, the end result should be the same.

[Green Cloud]

Chi gung ( soft breathimg method) designed to create internal organ health and create proper blood flow. Hei Gung ( Hard breathin method) Dynamic tention exercises wich oxyginate the red blood cells and develops Iron body.

[CFT]

Chi gung ( soft breathimg method) designed to create internal organ health and create proper blood flow. Hei Gung ( Hard breathin method) Dynamic tention exercises wich oxyginate the red blood cells and develops Iron body.qi(chi) gong is Mandarin pronunication. Hei gung is the same characters, just Cantonese pronunication.

I know there are different types of qigong, some "soft", some "hard".

[FatherDog]

Did someone mention Coutier conditions himself very well? Can he condition himself like the young man doing the same thing as him? Apparantly not.

Yes, because a KO loss in the second round where he at no point appeared tired says anything about his conditioning. :rolleyes:

[Ray Pina]

I've been meaning to ask about this because I didn't see the fight..... so what was it:

Was he simply over attributed? Facing aguy who knows enough about the ground but has a long reach advantage and youth on him?


or

Was he beat by a technical advantage, some sort of technology that put him in an inferior position?

or

Did he simply zig when he should have zagged?

[FatherDog]

Mostly 3. First round, he advanced cautiously, controlling the center of the ring, while Chuck used good footwork and circled, picking his shots. Randy managed to get one takedown, but Chuck immediately got back to his feet using the fence. Randy kept him clinched up against it, but wasn't able to capitalize. Randy's face was a bit banged up and he was bleeding from the nose, which may have been broken.

Second round, Randy slips every so slightly while changing levels. Immediately recovers by throwing a left hook; Chuck dips, it glances off his head, and Chuck catches Randy with a short right that drops him to the mat. Chuck immediately gets in position by Randy's side, controls his legs with one arm and pounds him with the other for the stoppage.

Conditioning wasn't a factor; neither man looked tired. Randy gave a guy with very heavy hands a slight opening, and Chuck capitalized and followed up.

Of course, if Chuck hadn't had the conditioning to make it out of the first round without being tired out, he never would have been able to capitalize on that opening - which is why conditioning is always important.

[omarthefish]

Since Coach Ross hasn't showed up yet, I'll say it first and let him fill in the details I can't remember and don't feel like looking up at the moment.

The term "internal" as in "internal martial arts" is less than 100 years old. I don't remember who first used it. My guess would be someonelike maybe Sun Lu Tang since he is responsable for so much of the literature that showed up in the 20th century on IMA. The term historically refered to Taiji, Bagua and Xing Yi and nothing else. The writer was describing how similar these 3 arts were and created the term "internal family styles" aka "neijiaquan" to create an umbrella category for those 3.

That's all it meant. No more. No less. All the rest of what "internal martial arts" means is what has evolved linguistically since then. Language changes and other people may have come to see characterisitics in other artsw that makes them feel they should be grouped together with the "big 3" but historically the term refers specificallly to those 3 styles and nothing else.

Now I am going to see if I can come up with the author of the term and a rough date you *******s. I was perfectly happy sipping instant coffee and lurking and now I have to go and actually DO something. *grrrr*

edit:

I just turned up an essay claiming it goes back to something a guy in the early Qing era, Huang Zong Xi (黄宗羲) wrote in 1669....I'm kind of skeptical of the source though. I'll re-edit once I've figured out how to read his name properly.

[omarthefish]

Ok, according to an article that appeared in "Wu Hun" magazine in 1984 and then reprinted in a collection of essays I have on my shelf here:

Very rough translation. No time for better right now. Sorry.


in the "Wang Zheng Nan Mu Zhi Ming" (some sort of eopigraph or memoirs or something) he [Wang Zongxi] says, "Shaolin is famous throughout the lands. It has "attack" as its foundation. The so called "internal styles" are based on stillness over motion. . . . this difference us why Shaolin is called the "external" school.

The myth of Zhang San Feng learning the shaoling style and refining it and improving it seems to have come from Huang Zongxi's son Huang Bai Jia （黄百家）in his book, "The Internal Method" (内家拳法).

I'm really annoyed at having found these couple articles. I was pretty cool with the term being 20th century. Either way it still works as a simple catchall to describe "not Shaolin" and to emphasise emphasis on stillness in motion and motion in stillness.

[Fu-Pow]

Internal and external are too confusing because it can refer to a lot of different things and internal carries all this supernatural baggage with it that confuses thing even more.

A better term would be sectional and unified. So called "internal" arts are more unified in movement where as the "external" arts move more sectionally.

Or we can talk about arts as simple physics vs. advanced physics. External arts are more about muscle contraction, levers, centripetal force, f=ma etc. Internal arts are more subtle utilizing biotensengrity structures, expansion and contraction, springiness, etc. They're more complicated to describe in that sense.

But there ARE differences!!!!


What you see in arts that start out as primarily as "external" is that they move from simple physics, sectionality, levers, centripetal force, etc. to more advanced physics, unified motion, expansion and contraction and springiness.
(This confuses the issue even more.)

[omarthefish]

That would be an interesting definition. One with no historical or technical basis in reality but interesting nonetheless. As long as you and the other party can agree that it means that for the context of your conversation then that's cool I guess.

For a definition with a historical basis you could look here:

http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/index.html

Half way down the page on the right hand side in a colum:


1."Neijiaquan" is said to have been created by Zhang Sanfeng, Taoist hermit from Wudang Mountains, was a style famous in 17th century and recorded by Huang Baijia (1634-?, student of Wang Zhengnan, Neijiaquan expert) in his "Neijia Boxing Method". The style, although very rare, is still practiced mainly in Sichuan province.

2.Styles that are based on Neigong (Internal Skill) methods which stress importance of Intent (Yi) and breathing in practice as well as relaxation. The result of practice is "not in over-developed muscles, but in strong and comfortable internal organs" (Zhang Naiqi: "Scientific Internal Boxing", 1936)

3.Taijiquan, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang are often referred to as "sister arts" as they share similar principles and stress importance of "Neigong"; they are also often classified into "Wudang cathegory" because of their legendary roots in Taoist temples in Wudang Mountains and because the teachers of these three styles taught within "Wudang Department" in Central Martial Arts Academy set up in Nanjing in 1928

4.Neijia as styles based on Peng Jin

NOTE:

The above the definitions of "Neijia" are not exclusive.


They are not exclusice because language evolves and new meanings have been attatched but the term is only as confusing as you want it to be. If you use the most common definition, the one's presented above, then its not very confusing at all.

[omarthefish]

Based on what? The law of FuPow?

When the rest of the world accepts your definition it will have some legitimacy. Currently the only basis for it is "Fu Pow said so." :D

[omarthefish]

Wow.

You deleted your post already. That was quick.

[Fu-Pow]

That would be an interesting definition. One with no historical or technical basis in reality but interesting nonetheless. .

Really? No technical basis? And what are you basing that on because I didn't use any Chinese IMA jargon?



For a definition with a historical basis you could look here:

http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/index.html

Half way down the page on the right hand side in a colum:

1."Neijiaquan" is said to have been created by Zhang Sanfeng, Taoist hermit from Wudang Mountains, was a style famous in 17th century and recorded by Huang Baijia (1634-?, student of Wang Zhengnan, Neijiaquan expert) in his "Neijia Boxing Method". The style, although very rare, is still practiced mainly in Sichuan province.

2.Styles that are based on Neigong (Internal Skill) methods which stress importance of Intent (Yi) and breathing in practice as well as relaxation. The result of practice is "not in over-developed muscles, but in strong and comfortable internal organs" (Zhang Naiqi: "Scientific Internal Boxing", 1936)

3.Taijiquan, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang are often referred to as "sister arts" as they share similar principles and stress importance of "Neigong"; they are also often classified into "Wudang cathegory" because of their legendary roots in Taoist temples in Wudang Mountains and because the teachers of these three styles taught within "Wudang Department" in Central Martial Arts Academy set up in Nanjing in 1928

4.Neijia as styles based on Peng Jin

NOTE:

The above the definitions of "Neijia" are not exclusive.



They are not exclusice because language evolves and new meanings have been attatched but the term is only as confusing as you want it to be. If you use the most common definition, the one's presented above, then its not very confusing at all.

Well actually you've got 4 definitions and they don't all describe the same term at all.

1) a historical defintion that may or may not have any basis in fact.

2) is partially technically correct...Nei Gong, relaxed, intentional and so forth is correct.... but the part about "the organs" is total bull$hit.

3) actually starts with the same definition as 2). The second part is a historical definition about the Wudang mtns which may or may not have basis in fact. The third part is historical and based on the second part...meaning they set up a "wudang" dpt because they believed that the Neijia arts all came from Wudang.

4) Is partially correct. However, as far as I know only Taiji uses the term Peng Jin.


That's not a very clean definition at all. It's confusing. Which is why I was attempting to define "internal" in Western terms and avoid this historical and technical mess altogether.

[Fu-Pow]

Wow.

You deleted your post already. That was quick.

See the post above I gave it a little more thought. BTW, what's your issue?:confused:

[omarthefish]

Really? No technical basis? And what are you basing that on because I didn't use any Chinese IMA jargon?

No. I am basing that on the fact that your personal musings do not count as authoritative. There are in fact historical and literary roots to the term. The term has a well researched history. You could site historical works as I did or you could site papers written on the subject or any number of things but you didn't all you have sited is your own personal understanding of one of the various accepted definitions for the term. It's one I have watched you try to formulate over the past year or so online. It's only source is your own experiences. Thats a good source for some things but not for linguistics.



Well actually you've got 4 definitions and they don't all describe the same term at all.

If you look up a word at random in an English dictionary you find the same thing. Many words, even common everyday English words, have multiple uses depending on context.

I'm using italics for these quotes to save space:

1) a historical defintion that may or may not have any basis in fact.

No. Number one is well documented. Zhang Sangfeng may be a myth but the articles written in the 17th century defining the term are historical fact.

2) is partially technically correct...Nei Gong, relaxed, intentional and so forth is correct.... but the part about "the organs" is total bull$hit.

Same mistake as above. You have confused an actual hostorical fact with the doubtfull ramifications of said fact. It doesn't matter what effect "internal" practice has on the organs. The FACT remains that IMA was defined in such a way by Zhang Nanqi in 1936. In fact, the part about the internal organs is not even part of the definition quoted. The definition presented is simply:


2.Styles that are based on Neigong (Internal Skill) methods which stress importance of Intent (Yi) and breathing in practice as well as relaxation.

The rest is the authors commentary on the results of said practice but not a definition of the pratice its self.

3) actually starts with the same definition as 2). The second part is a historical definition about the Wudang mtns which may or may not have basis in fact. The third part is historical and based on the second part...meaning they set up a "wudang" dpt because they believed that the Neijia arts all came from Wudang.

Nevertheless every single statement presented on the page in that part is 100 percent historically true to the best of anyone's knowledge. If you can present a source contradicting any part of it at all please do so.

4) Is partially correct. However, as far as I know only Taiji uses the term Peng Jin.

This is not exactly true but is also kind of irrelevant. I don't care for that definition either.


That's not a very clean definition at all. It's confusing. Which is why I was attempting to define "internal" in Western terms and avoid this historical and technical mess altogether.

What's confusing? There are several specific broadly accepted historical definitions. It's exactly because they are historical that they are NOT confusing. They are not subjective and they are easy to describe. You must have a hell of a time with English if you find multiple definitions for the same term confusing. Just open a dictionary some time and take a "look":

look.
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=look)

My "issue" is that while trying to describe what something as vague as "internal power" feels like or where it comes from, the topic is "Definition and history". THOSE are easy, or at least a historical definition is easy. I prented a link with 4 good ones. They are not subjective. They are common use and historical definitions. It's onlu when you venture out into the descriptive that you get on shaky ground.

[Fu-Pow]

No. I am basing that on the fact that your personal musings do not count as authoritative. There are in fact historical and literary roots to the term. The term has a well researched history. You could site historical works as I did or you could site papers written on the subject or any number of things but you didn't all you have sited is your own personal understanding of one of the various accepted definitions for the term. It's one I have watched you try to formulate over the past year or so online. It's only source is your own experiences. Thats a good source for some things but not for linguistics.

My "issue" is that while trying to describe what something as vague as "internal power" feels like or where it comes from, the topic is "Definition and history". THOSE are easy, or at least a historical definition is easy. I prented a link with 4 good ones. They are not subjective. They are common use and historical definitions. It's onlu when you venture out into the descriptive that you get on shaky ground.

1) I never represented my definition of "internal" as authoritative. You're putting words on the page for me.

2) The original question was not...." what is a linguistic history of the word "internal" (ie Nei) in relation to martial arts?" It wasn't "what does Nei or Nei Jia or Nei Gong mean?"

It was and I quote directly:



While we're at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining "internal" (again! ) please go ahead!

I'll have a go:

An internal art is an art that concentrates predominantly on training core principles which do not have a focus on purely physical attributes like speed, strength and technique, but more on mental attributes, spiritual attributes or indiscernible physical attributes like small connective muscle tissue between tendons.

I think its pretty clear from the author's "stab" at it what he's looking for and that's what I gave him. So if you want to start a historical discussion of the word Nei in relation to martial arts why don't you start your own thread?

[Jules]

While we're at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining "internal" (again! ) please go ahead!


I've got one. It's when you take your intestines out, and the other person takes theirs out, and you slap each other with them until one of you falls over. :D

This thread is pretty informative. I've learned about 80 different ways of spelling Tai Chi.

But in all seriousness, this thread really is very informative. Basically what I'm getting mostly is that "internal" describes something more nebulous--not imprecise by any means, but harder to put your finger on. I'm not saying this about the reality of this or the results, but just the definition. All I can really add is that I enjoy it in class, and somehow feel better the rest of the night afterwards.

~~J

[Mr Punch]

...2) The original question was not...." what is a linguistic history of the word "internal" (ie Nei) in relation to martial arts?" It wasn't "what does Nei or Nei Jia or Nei Gong mean?"
...
I think its pretty clear from the author's "stab" at it what he's looking for and that's what I gave him. So if you want to start a historical discussion of the word Nei in relation to martial arts why don't you start your own thread?Cheers for your answers Mr Pow, but in fact the original question was about an article explaining the use of the words, so Omar has it so far (and cheers Omar).

My addition of having a stab at defining it was because I knew that we'd have a lot of people misreading the question and defining it, which would evolve into a phenomenal flame war as usual (sorry: reasoned discussion!) so I thought I'd set the ball rolling ;) :D .

I do like some of your answers though, not bad at explaining internal again. Although, your understanding of external seems to be lacking with the following statement:
better term would be sectional and unified. So called "internal" arts are more unified in movement where as the "external" arts move more sectionally.
Are you saying boxers don't have body unity? If so, I'll fight your entire family and pets and your master.

LOL at Jules: you gotta lotta guts!

[Green Cloud]

Ok here we go internal is breathing in external is breathing out jeeze guys keep it simple, I read CJ's explanation and well I got to back to school just to keep up with his dissatation of chi. Most people aren't that smart.:o

[Fu-Pow]

Cheers for your answers Mr Pow, but in fact the original question was about an article explaining the use of the words, so Omar has it so far (and cheers Omar).

Well, we don't know the content of "the article." Was it historical? Was it technical? Was it descriptive?

All I know is someone jumped down my throat for what I thought to be an appropriate response.



Are you saying boxers don't have body unity? If so, I'll fight your entire family and pets and your master.


Are you talking about a bad boxer or a good boxer? Good boxer would but IMO except for rare cases still would not = the same level of unity that internal arts strive for. Just as most kung fu styles do not reach that level of unity. However, its not really required because the strategy of, for example, boxing and Taiji are very different.

[Fu-Pow]

Fu Pow, you sexy SOB - nice to know someone else here is into my pet topic, that is, tensegrity; so, ok, here it is in a nutshell: when you hit the ground, it hits back, plain and simple - Newton's First Law, aka Ground Reaction Force (GRF); now, GRF is a neutral entity, so to speak - pure input/output - in other words, when GRF hits your foot, what happens? well, depending on how your foot is, the way in which the GRF travels will be directed along lines of existing tension in the system (tensegrity - essentially based on principles of continuous tension / discontinuous compression in regards to how the force traverses the system) - if you have a fully functional connnective tissue network, then the GRF will pass up through your structure and literally out the top of your head, giving you a nice spinal decompression along the way; if not, the GRF will "bump" into whatever is getting in its way, creating further micro-trauma as it does;

internal practice teaches you to feel what your body structure does, how it responds to the GRF, then it teaches you how to harness / direct (or at the very least not interfere with) that GRF; it coordinates this with the breathing, to harmonize the effect of GRF travelling through the cellular structure in a "good" way, mechanically stimulating the cells along lines of optinmal biomechanical vectors (ones that promote building up as oposed to breaking down the connective tissue matrix, even at the level of cytoskeleton) with the intrinsic cellular respiratory function, so that you hit the inspiratory phase while the GRF is moving up (which is why when you inhale, you "go up", sop to speak) - this is for health, because it stimulates parasympathetics, laregly due to the positional suspension of the occiput and sacrum when you do this correctly, stimulating various parasympathetic cranial nerves and the sacral parasympathetic hypogastric plexus respectively; this process is supported by the transverse diaphragm system in the body (pedal, pelvic, respiratory, cervicothoracic and cranial), which act as force transducers, modulating the GRF as it moves vertically, lateralizing it as well to the perifery - therefore, the whole body gets the effect

for fighting, there seems to be an opposite effect when you inhale, but "go down", via the whole "reverse breathing" process - here, you seem to be stimulating the sympathetics, creating a controlled adrenaline response, while at the same time storing the GRF in the connective tissue like a spring, then "going up" while you exhale, releasing the potential energy into kinetic energy (which, if you do incorrectly, can overstress the autonomics/sympathtics, polay hell with your cardiorespiratory and neuroendocrine systems, and screw up the connective tissue/neuromuscular structures as well)

of course, the F=MA and lever/fulcra concepts certainly apply - it's just a question of how you can effect the interaction these have with the organism in general; and in terms of external/internal "styles", well, you can certainly get the same net efffect ith an "external" one - it's just a matter of focus - if you concentrate on strength, speed and endurance building, that's where you will have the change; if you focus on kinesthetic self-awareness in order to optimize GRF transduction and all that, that's where you'll have an impact (which is largely why TCC is done slowly, so that you can have a chance to notice what's going on - later on, you do things fast, because you have that ability)

as far as internal alchemy, there are several ideas: largely, i think you are impacting the autonomic nervous system, optimizing it's function, balancing sympathetic and parasympathetic, and then actualy stimulating the system to function along a set of principles that seem contradictory to what we typically experience - for example, slowing down the aging process significantly - probably has to do a lot with how the body handles free radicals, how cellular regeneration occurs (think about it - cells die over time because they degrade with each mitosis event - if you elminate the need for that to occur, you could technically live forever - slowit down and you live a long time); there is the phenomenon of bai gu - spontaneous fasting, where you live on very little food, mainly on water and air / sunlight - it's almost llike the system someohow is able to work along principles of photosynthesis - mind you, there are things i;ve heard, mostly - my teacher practiced the bai gu for 3 months once, and lived very nicely on a teaspoonfull of rice a day - and he didn't loose much wight at all...so anyway, that's one part; the other part of taoist / internal alchemy is he shamanistic part, getting into things like dreamwork, lucid dreaming, etc.

ok, long post, sorry - but comments welcome...


Holy sh)t. I'm gonna have a take a few days and dissect this.:eek:

[omarthefish]

I think its pretty clear from the author's "stab" at it what he's looking for and that's what I gave him. So if you want to start a historical discussion of the word Nei in relation to martial arts why don't you start your own thread?

Alright, I overstepped it a bit. Looking back I can see Mat DID open the door for people to try and explain what it means to them and get tangled up in what makes a style "internal" according to the common present day understanding of the term.

Mat,

Thank you for posting and clearing that up a bit.

I'll cool off on Fu Pow for now.

Well, we don't know the content of "the article." Was it historical? Was it technical? Was it descriptive?

The article I referenced anyways was technical and descriptive. The writers it referenced, Wang Zongxi and Wang Baijia are apparently very famous withing certain circles and are widely given credit for coining the term. The two of them, father and son, can be researched easily enough by Chinese readers. The idea of "neijia", the internal style, I am learning goes back much further though but not really with specific attatchment to martial arts so the Wang's may have just been the first recorded instance of using the terminology to describe MA. There's a pretty extensive elaboration of the subject over at emptyflower on this thread:

http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=Xing;action=display;num=1139438383

I think Bamboo Leaf does the best job of summarizing what the traits are in the way that Fu Pow is attempting to describe. His views are clearly quite different but they are closer to mine than the rather mechanistic ideas being put forth on this thread so far. Bob (aka RAF on this board) has presented probably the most thourough scholarly analysis of the term in the way I was trying to summarize here. So there it is from both perspectives.

The thread over there gets a little dense but is well worth it. It's only two pages long but 2 very good pages IMHO.

[Fu-Pow]

as for my "diss-atation" (great play on words Gus :D ) of what chi is, it's pretty straight forward, in my opinion: chi is not some mystical force that exists and can be measured per se - it is a metaphorical description of the integrated function of a given organism (human, plant,even the planet): it's energy (electrical, heat), matter (tissue, fluid) and the way these interract in the body (blood flow, respiration, digestion, neural activity)

Beautiful!

[Anthony]

http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html


sheds some light on internal VS. external

[Wood Dragon]

I'll redirect the question:

How is basic skill training and physical preparation different in "Internal" systems (Xingyiquan, Bagua, Ba Ji, Taiji) as compared to Hung Gar, Lama Pai, or Shotokan Karate?

What are the fundamental (learned before all others) skills and principles?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

First, i don't think the differences between internal and external can be summarized by description.. it's something that has to be experienced.

My own understanding is that Taiji or the internal arts are a bit more holistic, engaging the subtle complexities of the body and its various systems.. internal arts look beyond simple cause and effect (ie: big muscles=big power).. Internal arts make use of inherent knowledge, things we "know" by experience but that elude current standards of measurement.. yes, i'm referring to Qi or energy or life-force.. that'll bring out the nay-sayers.. internal arts are keenely aware of structure and alignment as pathways for expressing maximum energy application with minimum energy output.. Internal arts are more concerned with the complete person rather than the single focus of fighting prowess.. which is circular in nature becaues the better the complete person is, the better the martial aspect will be..

I think we distract ourselves with quests of historical verification.. the efficacy/validity of a system is evident in its current manifestation.. the founders were not so different than many in our arts today, they had a passion for discovery of the human potential.. detailed observation, trial and error, and dedication with an open mind were the fertile fields that allowed Taiji to grow into such a profound art.. As much as some will disagree with me, i see Taiji as a much less systemized art than external arts, it is more about the basic principles as applied to any situation than the choreography of the dance..

I have no doubt that internal arts will continue to evolve far beyond its humble beginnings. Advances in physics, medicine, physiology and consciousness will illuminate deeper and even more profound Taiji manifestations..

These are my opinions, and i am no "authority".. my contribution is subject to change upon evidence presented that is sufficient to convince me differently.. it is more important to discover closer approaches to "truth" than it is to be "right"..

Be well..

[omarthefish]

Greetings..
....

I think we distract ourselves with quests of historical verification.. ....

Be well..

I don't distract and I don't verify. I duck the issue.

The historical definitions are the only one's we can agree on. The things you are talking about, as you said, need to be experienced. There's no real point in trying to pin it down online. I could offer a fairly pat definition of what you are talking about and it would still be meaningless because it would only create 3 more equally troublesome questions of definitions. We'd then have to explain not only "qi" but "yi" and "shen" as well. It's a pointless discussion that goes nowhere. It is a complete waste of time to discuss it outside of an actual practice. You may as well be dicussing colors with the blind from birth. So I stick to the historical definitions as they can be pinned down and are not contraversial. They are there in print in multiple sources and there is a strong consensus on them.

So I am not distracting myself. I am trying to distract everyone else. :p

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Histories and lineages are as shrouded in mystery as any other aspect of the Art.. what we are left with are the accounts that have some level of consistency.. there are many more accounts, however incongruous, of much earlier origins and creators.. the current historical landscape is not unlike the historical landscape of the Bible.. selective editing of numerous accounts into a plausible scenario, a scenario based on the agendas of editors... no biggie, though.. i am much more concerned with Taiji's future than its past..

Be well..