Internal vs external power

[SPJ]

Do you think there is no such distinction?

or they are just differentiation of certain aspects of the same thing?

your comments?

[bodhitree]

I do believe in good body mechanics/coordination
I do believe in using force/physics to be more efficient (when possible)

But all this energy from the center disrupt your vital organs stuff I don't believe in

edit: my vote is 'no'

[SPJ]

so far 3 to 2.

com'on ppl. caste your votes.

[mantis108]

Voted for no. 1

The distinction is a BS marketing thing, period. It is people who has little to no understanding of Pugilistic Anatomy in terms of Chinese worldview that perpetuated the myth of such a distinction.

Mantis108

[Lucas]

IMO ~ The human body only reaches its maximum effeciency and effectiveness when all of its possible functions are utilized in harmony with correct intention.

To seperate one type of functioning from another creates contention within the body.

How can one ever be truly whole in action if you view half of what you can do as something "different"

It is all part of human motion and mechanics.

[Christopher M]

all this energy from the center disrupt your vital organs stuff I don't believe in

What does this have to do with neijin?

The distinction is a BS marketing thing, period. It is people who has little to no understanding of Pugilistic Anatomy in terms of Chinese worldview that perpetuated the myth of such a distinction.

Sun Lutang had little to no understanding of pugilistic anatomy in terms of Chinese worldview?

To seperate one type of functioning from another creates contention within the body.

Similarly, should we say that dusting and swimming are the same activity, because to do otherwise would create contention within the body?

[Water Dragon]

I'ma chime in on this one. There is a difference in my experience, but it's not near as big a deal as people try to make out. In Tai Chi, the power came from the middle, and shot out to the hand and the foot from the center. In boxing, the power came from the foot through the back and shoulder, and out the fist. Both of these are simply ideas you focus on while hitting the bag or the pads. The actual difference in body mechanics were slight, the only real difference was in the shoulders, but the power was similar. I wouldn't classify one as even really different than the other.

[Lucas]

Similarly, should we say that dusting and swimming are the same activity, because to do otherwise would create contention within the body?

I see what you are saying. And the answer i would say is no, they arent the same activity.

But both of those activities do require you to use breathing, muscular contraction, balance/equilibrium, etc.

those are pretty basic actions, that require basic human motor functions.

while the actions themselves will require different muscle groups, breathing patterns, etc. they do not require you to do anything other than use your human body in the way it can best perform to meet your needs.

every situation changes. the human body does not.

[golden arhat]

is one side of a coin more valuble than the other side ?

u cant have a back with out the front

i put 2 as for everything there must be an opposite that comes with it

[David Jamieson]

there is only totality.

segmentation is narrow and unproductive.

[Lucas]

i could seperate the water from the tea leaves, but then i would just have water in one hand and tea leaves in the other.

there would be no more tea.

[Christopher M]

In boxing, the power came from the foot through the back and shoulder, and out the fist.

Although it doesn't change your point, it does address a typical confusion about the issue at hand: boxing is not waijia. Waijia and neijia are classifications internal to chinese martial culture. Sort of like 'szechuan' and 'cantonese' refer to Chinese styles of cooking. Alot of the confusion arises because neijia are mystified so much that people forget it is simply the name of one family of martial arts.

But both of those activities do require you to use breathing, muscular contraction, balance/equilibrium, etc.

So it seems my analogy holds. Just as the unity of the body does not compel you to find swimming and dusting to be the same, so it should not compel you to find neijin and waijin to be the same.

I won't repeat this argument for golden arhat's and David Jamieson's replies.

[Water Dragon]

Correct, but I wasn't addressing Tai Chi vs Boxing. I was addressing two seperate ways of learning how to develop power. The implicit connection was that the Wai Ja develop power from the foot, up the leg, through the spine, out the shoulder, through the elbow, and out the finger tips. And yeah, they do express it a little differently, but it's the same idea. But then, Hsing Yi, Bagua, and Taiji all express power differently two, but it's all generated through Dan Tien.

[mantis108]

Sun Lutang had little to no understanding of pugilistic anatomy in terms of Chinese worldview?

Sun Lu Tang is clear on there is no such a thing as internal and external in the practice of Kung Fu. The mind-body continuum is just that mind-body continuum. I have read the compendium of his five books and come to the conclusion that he's indeed not interested in the internal and external distinction. There is little doubt that he had influence from Neo-Confucian's teachings, which is philosophically inclined but he's able, at least in my view, to remain a mystic. I shared this before and here it is again:

Well, Sun Lu Tang actually tried to convey the message that martial tradition at the advanced level is not different from the civil tradition. They are essentially not independent of Chinese education since ancient time and they are not mutually exclusive. The goal of both civil and martial traditions is the same. That is to say they attempt to bring about an enlightened individual or ideal person. In Chinese term, it's call Nei Sheng Wai Wang (Sage-King). Sun Lu Tang's material actually transcended martial arts (wu shu). It's become martial academia (wu xue).

In some ways, he structured his material after the Neo-Confucian's teaching material - Si Shu (the four texts). So Xing Yi, Bagua, Taiji, and Bagua Jian (the sword form) serve similar purpose as the four texts of the civil scholars as these systems to the martial scholars of his time (and properly for all times in his mind). But it is of note that he didn't claim that it is his own doing but he give credit to his teachers as his source. In truth, he didn't create anything new. Rather he summarized it altogether in a series of books.

If he endeavoured to tear down the great divide between civil and martial traditions, which has plagued Chinese culture since ancient time, does it make sense that he would bother with trivial distinction such as internal and external that more than likely going to ignite the nay sayers' desires to derail his attempt for a noble cause altogether? I think he's much more intelligent then that.

Mantis108

[Christopher M]

Sun Lu Tang is clear on there is no such a thing as internal and external in the practice of Kung Fu.

Most commentators I have read not only hold Sun Lutang to be sympathetic to this categorization of the chinese martial arts, but moreover associate him with its origin, or at least the popularization thereof. On this basis, it does not seem to me that the matter is clearly resolved as you suggest. Do you have some argument against this interpretation? I only have his book on baguazhang at hand, but in reviewing it quickly I see that he refers to the particular unity of the neijia in his preface to the chapter on wuji, and it is further stated in the first preface by his student.

The mind-body continuum is just that mind-body continuum.

What relevance does this statement have to the topic at hand?

If he endeavoured to tear down the great divide between civil and martial traditions <..> does it make sense that he would bother with <a> distinction such as internal and external...?

It doesn't seem like the two positions have anything to do with one another. You can disagree with one distinction and agree with another, of course.