Internal vs External.

[Laughing Cow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

[guohuen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[count]

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]

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]

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.