I'm a bit of a dumb dumb when it comes to the whole "internal" arts. Until recently i was under the impression that the term "internal art" was related to systems dealing more with the cultivation of chi and helping you learn to use it more effectively to promote your personal health. The other day i was reading through Mike Pattersons site and found a different interpretation. I'll post a link to the page in question and a small quote. I would like to get a take on this from others here that are "ACTUALLY TRAINING" in systems like hsing-i, tai chi and so on. No DBZ theories. I've heard from a few different people that Mike Patterson knows what he is talking about and is a very effective artist and instructor, Scott being one. I would just like another take from those who KNOW. http://www.hsing-i.com/hsing-i/IntvsExt.html

"The original meanings of Internal vs. External kung fu have been largely misconstrued over the last generation due to many "oral" variations of the many different kung fu families trying to paint a picture showcasing their own individual style. So, now adays a person hears many incorrect statements regarding these differences such as External Styles are "Hard" and Internal Styles are "Soft", but in reality the original meaning of this "difference" was entirely philosophic and geographic. The original me aning of the external styles was simply that those styles were originally started by Da Mo and the ShaoLin temples (buddhist philosophy) who purportedly came from India, and was hence from outside China (External Style). And the original meaning of "Internal" was to denote those styles that were founded on the Taoist philosophy of Lao Tzu and were created inside of China (Internal Styles)."

Sounds reasonable to me, especialy if you consider alot of the supposed "external" systems (under the accepted definition) do concern themselves with proper use of chi/ki-if you accept chi/ki as generating power through proper body mmechanics.

Just a personal observation.... external arts are also taught externally and need to take the correct position according to the eye of the instructor, whereas internal arts are according to the feeling of the practitioner under the questioning and guidance of the instructor.

I look at the internal/external MA as being perfect yin/yang for each other and this is how we teach it in our system. They complement and add to each other.

We promote the use of qi gong and reiki for healing benefits and practice qi gong to help with flow of ki within the body.

Bossman has it in a nutshell where he says both need the advice and help of an experienced instructor!

Reiki

My sister told me that her friend at work studies Reiki.

She asked a big person at work to push her but she couldn't.

The little skinny girl then pushed the big girl and made her drift backwards.

(My sister told this story to other people on the phone...so I don't think she is lying totally)

Can you tell me more about the art?

Can a person really generate that amount of Ki by studying Reiki?

What the article is saying is that the term internal and external has nothing to do with chi/ki. It also has nothing to do with hard or soft styles or how they are taught. It has to do with where and by whom it was developed. External systems be started by people not actually from China but living there, following the line that the shaolin temples were started by someone from India. Internal styles were developed by people indigionous to China. He's saying it has nothing to do with chi/ki at all. I'd really like to know what Scott and Wado think about this.

[This message has been edited by laf7773 (edited 05-13-2004).]

If that is the correct terminology I will use it I used the internal external convention because everyone else on the forum used it, If you read my last posting in I never made any distinction between physical and spiritual, or internal vs external, I said some arts focused first on different training. I don't think I ever used the term internal or external martial arts in fact. I have said that some arts focus first on development of the spirit but I never even posted about internal vs external. Sorry I did use it once I referred to this forum section as internal martial arts, it's tough to come up with thread names without looking at them so my posting dated 3-13 should be corrected and my reference to this section of the forum being titled internal martial arts should be corrected to read energy arts. I will edit the posting but I won't change it and revise history I will post a note at the end.

[This message has been edited by WADO (edited 05-13-2004).]

[This message has been edited by WADO (edited 05-13-2004).]

Also when I said that the philosophy developed that you can tap into the ultimate reality in the universe internally or externally that was from the Upanishads that wasn't my viewpoint.

I always thought an internal art was an art focusing more on things like energetics and such. Then when i read Mr. Pattersons version it made me wonder if it was correct or not. With him coming so highly recomended i was just wondering if he was right since he's the only one i've ever heard use it in this sence. I don't want anyone to think i'm trying to chastise them or say they are wrong, i would just like to know the proper use of the terms.

Call me ignorant my PHD is in philosophy not martial arts history, what I know about martial arts history is mostly from training in Japanese martial arts and I really never heard of the term internal martial arts and external martial arts untill about 3 weeks ago so I really don't have a clue what it refers to.