Your opinions: Internal & External

[ZIM]

In one respect at least, MP got it. The term originated, IIRC, from some epitaph [forget the proper name] stele. It was a kind of eulogy/political statement talking about foriegn influences and how internal styles were taoist- from China, and external styles were buddhist- from India, IOW.

There are many other possible definitions, too. Internal may refer to: 'inside the family' versus 'outside the family' [somewhat like 'they just don't get it'], a sequence of learning, an emphasis on linked body structure to perform any given movement, etc.

The rest has been covered quite well, I think.

[shadow]

The ultimate goal of any CMA is to achieve a state of Wuchi, in which there is no external/internal, The only difference is the training to achieve the state of wuchi. In my opinion you guys are right on the money with this one.

[Xebsball]

for you maybe

for me its just fighting, the health stuff comes along

[Ray Pina]

Internal style: teaches one the formula

extrenal: teaches one the result

[mantis108]

Internal styles generally confuse opponents with secrets or bore them with extremely slow movements. Whereas external stylists tend to hide behind "closed doors" and target thier attackers' family lineage.

Me like this defination but me confused. What if the externals have a "coming out" party? Then what ...?

Mantis108

[Judge Pen]

http://www.hsing-i.com/hsing-i/IntvsExt.html

This seems to imply that the difference is simply the geographic origin of the style. What do you all think?

[Laughing Cow]

Not sure, I have heard quiet a few variations:

Wudang vs Shaolin
Inside China/Outside China
Inside Family/Outside Family
and so on.

Definition seems to change with time.

[Shaolin-Do]

...
Its all the same... just different paths up the mountain.
You take the high road and Ill take the low road, and well meet up together at the top.

External builds from body to mind, internal from mind to body. Or so we are told.
Watered down tai chi hippies.


I dont see the big debate anyways, most people I know practice one external and 1 or more internal forms...

[Christopher M]

It's possible that responses coming from people who've never trained in the internal arts might not be accurate.

It's also possible that how/what you train will have an effect in what you learn, invalidating relativist remarks of the form "all the same ultimately."

Regarding "most people I know practice one external and 1 or more internal forms...", it should be kept in mind that the form is only one part, and typically not a large one, of training; and it's value is as a pedagogy to study a certain quality of movement - so simply doing it or "knowing" it is itself fairly meaningless.

It's really a shame these families have become known by words that have alot of "meaning baggage" allready associated with them, rather than words which would have been previously meaningless. It's caused an awful lot of misunderstanding.

[Taomonkey]

I dont know if I would make art distinctions as one being internal or one external, I believe all arts have some internal aspect some level of a tai chi (not the forms but the concept). I see internal as coordination of movement and breath, different arts have different methods of breath. Some would say it lies into where the chi is stregnthened, external styles would have more surface and external, and internal styles develope internal chi. If you believe in all the mumbo jumbo. Is one superior? Who cares! they all have their beauty.

[Fred Sanford]

from what i've seen internal/ external are different. one is not better than the other, just different. studying an external art for x number of years will not give you skill in an internal art. There are specific principles and body mechanics that you are learning. If you have never studied one of the so called internal arts in some capacity then you really aren't qualified to comment, you are just guessing.

[jon]

Just a personal opinion on an age old debate, please dont take this as anything more.


IMHO the distinction refers mainly to the contexts under which the styles developed. This however is i believe mainly geographical.
Most so called 'internal' styles all underwent the major part of there development within each others eyes. In other words they all had the chance to mix and share ideas and to compare methodologys and theorys.
This is quite similar to the way which many southern shaolin systems are closely related or how Hakka arts often have various similaritys to one another.

XingYi, Taiji, Bagua where all practiced and popular within the same geographic region and as such a lot of cross polination has occured and the methods are frequently mixed with each other.

Its well known that many of the old masters of Xingyi Taiji and Bagua used to train together and even live togther. They also of course shared knowledge and shared students. It would be silly to think that such periods would not have an effect on the arts and in my opinion this 'effect' has been that they are now very closely related.

They are all certainly distinct systems in there own right but the fact remains they have also shared a *lot* in terms of codevelopment.


I think another fairly easy place to lay blame is on the very respectable Master Sun Lu Tang. Who in one of his early books in an effort to discribe the relationship between the 'internal' arts discribed them all as members of the Nei Ja family.



The internal systems are not 'special', they are not 'high level' or 'refined' any further than any other system. They are of course imo excerlent methods of combat and extrodinary training systems in there own right but to try and pretend have they have some kind of 'secret' that other arts dont have is blatantly rediculous and elitist.
They may have there own special focusses and methods but what art doesnt?

These same methods however help to define them as styles and its these same methods which are commen to the 'internals'.
Its becouse of this that the internals often use a similar method of moving the body and a similar useage for the various shaps which they choose to imploy.


Anyway im by no means trying to say this is what internal 'is' as to be honest its kind of futile in many ways. Ive met pleanty of very good Taiji players who excel in using hard power and ive also met pleanty of so called 'externalists' who where clearly using more than just muscle to generate force.

In the end a fighting system is just that, no point trying to put in a box and label it.