what does internal mean to you?

After a long winter bud
Pink petals flutter
Didn't stay long on the branch.

IMHO, its about what parts of my body/mind I use the connect and affect what part of your body.
I tend to think of "external" being more muscle and force coordinated with aggression.
I tend to think of "internal" being more structure/alignment subtle movement coordinated with mental intent and breathing.
Just trying to find a useful distinction to know/feel the difference.
My training in "internal" is still very elementary.

Internal:
Changing what you can: you
Accepting and blending with what you can't change: others

Seeking a common center through your center and theirs.

External: forcing solutions, putting your will on others, making an other do what you want them to do
Using muscle and superior strength and size.

Erick Mead wrote: I find that Aikido trains action of certain reflexive structural behaviors of the body, and targets these in others. The language of the traditions necessarily speaks of actions in terms that are difficult because these actions occur in pathways and in timings that are difficult to nail down into direct causes and effects. In fact, the mismatch in timing of unconscious action versus awareness and conscious reaction, often seems to confound normal assumptions of causes and effects. Thus, the belief arises that the musculature did not cause the action, because the voluntary musculature seems to be lagging what has already happened with the musculature reflexively before you were even aware of it.

Coordination of mind (internal) and body (external) narrows the difference between "unconscious action versus awareness and conscious reaction" as close to zero as possible. Or, as Mary E. put it in an earlier post; "...acceptance of uke and the moment...paying attention to what is...allowing a solution not forcing one."

Erick Mead wrote: ...we can begin to shape our reflexive action, like a surfer carves his own path on a wave even though he can never control the shape and path of the wave directly.

A nice metaphor of nage simultaneously leading/following uke.

Ron

Brian Sutton wrote: So we can't train any martial or non martial movements without the use of the bodies external musculature. Right? So is there really a separation between external and internal martial arts. Does an external art coordinate breath and mental focus?Do internal martial arts somehow not use the body. What does "internal" mean to you? Thoughts?

To my ignorant mind, "internal," denotes greater ostensible focus on whole-body/mind integration. A rose by any other name smells just as beautiful, though.

Ron Ragusa wrote: Coordination of mind (internal) and body (external) narrows the difference between "unconscious action versus awareness and conscious reaction" as close to zero as possible.

The point is really more profound than that ... or in the terms of difference -- zero is not the lower bound of the physiological difference between "unconscious action versus awareness and conscious reaction." It can and does go negative. That creates "spooky" cause and effect perception because of the temporal mismatch in reflex action, perception and voluntary action

Conscious action has a latency barrier (perception to action delay) at ~100 ms -- the limit of highly trained pattern responses, like the best punching. Ordinary voluntary action is at about 300 ms latency. Reflexes have a latency far less. Reflexive action confounds these things, because the voluntary action latency lags the reflexive actions which change the foundation on which the voluntary action was based.

There is more here.

Erick Mead wrote: The point is really more profound than that ... or in the terms of difference -- zero is not the lower bound of the physiological difference between "unconscious action versus awareness and conscious reaction." It can and does go negative. That creates "spooky" cause and effect perception because of the temporal mismatch in reflex action, perception and voluntary action

The salient point here is that there's a temporal separation between mind and body that is manifest in the latency barrier that you so aptly describe. The body is always in the moment, the mind, be it the conscious or unconscious, never is due to the stimulus to perception delay. It's precisely because of the stimulus to perception delay that the mind can never know an "instant" of time. It can only perceive the past and ponder the future.

And there are degrees of stimulus to perception to action delay based on how closely the mind is fixed on what's currently happening. A highly coordinated mind and body (again, I'm not distinguishing between the conscious and unconscious mind) will exhibit less of a stimulus to action delay than a mind and body that are widely separated temporally. Being caught day dreaming in math class, stepping off a curb and not seeing the car that almost runs you down, freezing up during a three person randori, a deer frozen in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle are examples of what I'm talking about. They're all examples of mind and body being widely disjointed in time (relatively speaking).

To illustrate with a personal example: When I was in the tenth grade in high school I tried out for the varsity baseball team. It turned out that I could hit pitches thrown by the school's pitching machine like there was no tomorrow. One ball after another flew off the bat, sweet spot hit every one. The coach was impressed and I was one of 3 sophomores to make the team. Our first game found me leading off (a bad coaching decision in retrospect) , scared s%*tless to be honest. The pitcher tossed up three fastballs right down the middle of the plate, about waist high. Three pitches that I watched go right by. My mind was so abuzz that my body was paralyzed and by the time I decided to swing the ball was past me; even though I knew on some level that each pitch was perfect the instant it left the pitcher hand. During the tryouts, my mind and body were highly coordinated; during that first at bat in the first game... not so much.

In terms of personal survival, my example is pretty trivial but it's had a profound effect on the nature and direction of my Aikido training.

Ron

IMO, internal methods focus more on what you're doing to yourself. External methods you "do somethin" to someone else.

Brian Sutton wrote: What does "internal" mean to you?

Thank you: At least to me this is indee a very challenging question.

Following the thread about "the relevance of origin" I think it's not that important what I think "internal" means. I think that there is no need to reinvent the term and it's understanding. Because, if I do so it will only contain, what I am able to put into it. I won't encounter anything new, but I will only find reflections of myself. In the worst case without being aware oft it.

So to me it seems to be more interesting and more helpfull to be mindfull of the teachings that transmitted the term "internal" and it's meaning it for centuries.
At least it is my experience that for example just one short look at the nei jing tu 內經圖 shows me that "internal" 內 means so much more than I can ever imagine. And this still is true alltthough I took my first view on it about 25 years ago.
The text of Tom Bisio which Chris has linked right at the beginning of this thread, points in the right direction and may give some good hints. And the texts of Ueshiba as Chris states are closely connected.

Also I think it is very interesting and very helpful to go and meet and feel persons who are able to teach these internals in the present. Feeling their body, feeling how they move, feeling in which way one's own body is affected by what they do.
At least for me this was the starting point: Feeling certain teachers and realizing that what they do is completely different. Feeling them and becoming aware, that they can actually do - and teach - what old Chinese and Japanese texts are talking about.

It is my observation that those teachers "agree" in how the feel, how they use their body and how they affect their partner. And also how they talk about what they do. Although being very different in many respects, essentially they transmit the very same understanding of "internal" - allthough some of them don't use this term - and - what's more - comparable manifestations of "internal" skills.
At least it is my experience that I may be able to use an exercise of this teachers to find a better aproach to what anotherone tries to convey. Then there is a third one who, without knowing about that, gives me a very subtle correction, that put's the pieces even more together. And so on ...
But what strike's me most, is that I have heard teachers use the exactly same expression, the exact same words to describe what they do and how and why that works. - Allthough they never met, even don't know each other and stem from "totally" different internal traditions within the Japanese context. But also from the chinese arts.

Just like reading o sensei writing about aiki as cross of yin-yang and kan-li only to find hat again in old chinese texts about nei/內 dan or nei/內 gong.

Ah ...

Carsten Möllering wrote: At least for me this was the starting point: Feeling certain teachers and realizing that what they do is completely different. ... .

...meaning: Different from what other teachers, i.e. the majority of teachers does.

Cliff Judge wrote: To say nothing of the teachers who know all kinds of stuff about internals and exhibit it but don't teach it. Or the teachers who exhibit internals but don't know anything about it. Or teachers who teach internals but can't exhibit it. Or the teachers who exhibit internals and may or may not know anything about it, but teach something which may not be the best way for students to learn it. Or the teachers who know, exhibit, and teach internals, but cannot abide other teachers who know and exhibit internals but teach in a different way, and insist the other teachers know nothing, which leaves students who may or may not have any idea what they are feeling or what they are doing confused as to what the whole thing is about.

V astute (and hilarious) summation Cliff! I always assumed that if someone could do it well they would also be able to teach it well. Now I have some pretty serious doubts.

To me internal means an understanding intention and being able to visualize a proper technique or training method in my mind first. Part of 'internalizing techniques' so that they flow naturally is the ability to envision positive execution. Mental training is important and that is what internal means to me.

I like Shaner-sensei's explanation of some basic internal strength concepts, starting at 7:55:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyBEIx7fCfY

At 10:05, Sensei has a big guy named Derek push on him and explains why the big guy can't push him (relaxation, the push goes down through "one point", etc).

Later, he does the famous "unbendable arm" - it's more interesting when a big guy is trying to bend a smaller person's arm of course.

Thanks for the link. Short and simple explanation on Aikido principles from an internal perspective. I especially liked the relation to business/work and keeping centre at all times.

An impossible thing to 'discuss' because a person who practices mostly a kata heavy style is going to be coming from a totally different experience to one who practices a more fluid style, or one who has more weapons input, or one who has other (kungfu) experience, or one who has competitive experience, or one who is supremely fit as against one who is not, and so on. But surely - there must be an internal 'answer'. Basically, the real challenge is not to trust your own experience but to go out and search the many. And then, only base it on what you can do, not what your teacher could do, or you think you should be able to do. Just, what you can do. That is all you have.

I've jumped on the 6H (6 harmonies) bandwagon and now just say I practice "6H basics" instead of "internal strength basics". 6H is more specific and seems to be less of a trigger phrase.

Brian Sutton wrote: So we can't train any martial or non martial movements without the use of the bodies external musculature. Right? So is there really a separation between external and internal martial arts. Does an external art coordinate breath and mental focus?Do internal martial arts somehow not use the body. What does "internal" mean to you? Thoughts?

Well my view on it is that, since we are a physical being interacting physically with others, and maybe the interacting is for some.also possible internally. The fact remains that people interact on a physical.level well.

I am Ki Aikido but also in Tai Chi Chuan and the people who sepparate internal and external i do not understand.

For instance in Tai Chi Chuan you can train the physical.forms to develop internally.

So i merely believe that internal and external are like.a yin yang or to keep it Japanese In Yo connected. Focus can be sepparate but, it belongs to eachother.

Even with meditation you bring your body, your physical state and being in a certain position so that you can meditate.

So i see more oneness instead of a sepparation of internal and external.