Originally posted by CLFNole
[B]Sisuk Joseph:
CN: First off about your post being harsh, I could care less. Afterall they are just words they don’t hurt and if people don’t have thick skin then they shouldn’t be here. I enjoy constructive conversation and even arguing but lets keep our heads cool.
JX: That is good; lets keep our heads cool and get through this.
CN: The first thing that should be noted is that there were major problems with the english translation for Lee Koon Hung’s book. Names of stances were wrong, etc… I don’t know if he even wrote the history part it could have been one of his Hong Kong University students that was doing the bas english translation.
JXA: Hmm, that is interesting, so you think your Sifu LKH may not have written the chapter on the history of CLF, that sounds plausible because it is full of mistakes and I would like to think a person of his calibre would have known better. Just the same, his book is very influential and still sells many copies, so the mistakes continued to this day. What a pity.
CN: The story that Lee Koon Hung told us was that Chan Hueng had learned kung fu from one of his clansman “uncles”. He never mentioned his name only that he gave Chan Hueng his early foundation. He then said he followed Lay Yau San and then Choy Fook. The GGM part is a bit confusing because I remember him saying that Chan Hueng followed him briefly and then he set Cheong Yim to follow him later on. This story was later told to us by his brother. The movie has Chan Hueng sending Cheong Yim out to find the GGM. But this is a movie and nowhere in the movie does it say “this is based on actual events”.
JX: So LKH told his students Chan Heung did studied with his clansman uncle first but didn’t know his name, then Lay Yau-San and then Choy Fook and not Choy Fook first as was written in his book, did he ever thought of correcting the mistakes? As for GGM, it was confusing and LKH could not make up his mind whether Chan Heung did studied with him or not but Chan Heung did sent Cheong Yim to see GGM, but it may not be based on actual events. So this would have tie in with WDF’s theory that GGM was a novel character made up by Nam Futsan Yan.
CN: As far as having any hard evidence no I don’t my sifu passed away. He didn’t have any special manuscripts lying around the house with the “History of the Green Grass Monk” written on it. His wife and daughters no nothing of this nor do they wish to.
JX: So your Sifu just mentioned GGM and did not even tell his students where this character came from or which teacher told him. Did you ever questioned your Sifu’s words? No, I suppose.
CN: I do not agree that he was the first to talk of th GGM becuase I haven’t had the opportunity nor do I wish to track down every book, magazine or paphlet in the world to find out. Truthfully I don’t know if there is any “hard evidence” out there checking a couple of books out there would be hardly what I consider “hard evidence” as to who brought about the GGM contraversy. Seriously the Chan Kin Man camp talks of him as do all of the other Hung Sing schools and some Buk Sing schools.
JN: My original intention was to find out when was the earliest mention of GGM as a historical figure. In this context the “hard evidence” that I was looking for would be books or articles written about him, especially useful if they were written before the “Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon” story. If they were written after and only in the 80’s then it is not unreasonable to accept WDF’s theory as being correct. The second line of support for the theory would be evidence provided by Chan Yiu-Chi’s manuscript saying GGM being a pseudonym for Choy Fook. Both of them saying GGM is not a real person. By knowing when was GGM first mentioned, we can see get a picture of the reliability of this character GGM. I don’t think this “hard evidence” is too difficult to obtain. So far I can only trace it to 1983, unless other evidence turn up in the future.
You said Chan Kin-Man and ALL of the other Hung Sing schools talked about him, yet according to alecM, Chan Kin-Man’s father Chan Hon Hung never mentioned the GGM at all. So it seems his son added the character in his history round about the early 80’s. Don’t you find this interesting? It took 3 to 4 generations for the history to change and now in the last few years, it began to accelerated to the point where we now have Cheong Yim as the founder of CLF and GGM taught all he knew and Chan Heung was just one of his teachers. The foundation of this claim rest with GGM, yet the existence this person as a historical figure is uncertain
CN: I know you come from the Chan Yiu Chi line and follow his writtings but tell me have you ever questioned there complete validity. I mean can you tell me everything about your grandfathers life especially when he was a young man. I think Chan Yiu Chi did great things for CLF but he was a man and all men deep down inside strive for fame and glory in some shape or form. To write a manuscript about his grandfathers kung fu would give his family the utmost respect in the CLF community even though his kung fu may or may not have been as good as his sihing dai. He would always have the famed “Manual of CLF from Chan Hueng”.
A: Chan Yiu Chi did not write his manuscript for fame and glory, otherwise he would have wasted no time in publishing it. He wrote it for his family and close disciples. You have to be very close to the family to get a page or two to look at. So your hurtful remark about Chan Yiu-Chi is just a cheap shot, I am really disappointed at you.
As for the validity of information on both sides, I did do quite a bit of checking the last time I was in China, especially the important things like dates, birth and burial places. Because they say Chan Heung’s birthday was lengthen by 10 years, I went to the public library in Guangzhou and I found what the Chen Family said about Chan Heung’s birthday was confirmed in the County Record, I went to King Mui where he was born and saw his gravesite and the Ancestral School where he taught for the first time. Many of his clansmen and descendants were still around. Then I went to Low Fo Shan and met this old tourist guide who told me he took some CLF people many years ago to see the place where Choy Fook’s temple used to stand.
After King Mui I went to Futsan and looked through Cheong Yim’s records. I went to the village where the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon said he was born and no one knew of him and there were no descendants to be seen. I went to the place where they said he was buried and could not find his grave. I asked for evidence of Ching Cho’s existence and they could not produce any and when I tried to look for Bak Pai Shan and I could not find it. So I left without any concrete evidence and I am still wondering what to make of Cheong Yim’s birth and death and the GGM. Even the claim that Cheong Yim started the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon was dubious, because what the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon wrote in 1998 in the local paper was different to what they wrote in their latest commemorative journal.
We have a foreigner called Futsan Dan living in Futsan at the moment, we can ask him where he can find evidence of the GGM and Bak Pai Shan and check out the village where Cheong Yim was born and the place he was buried. I didn’t get any satisfaction, may be he can help us out. I go to China quite often, so tell me where to look and I can go and check it out.
CN: I don’t mean to rock your boat but what I am trying to get at is every side has a story and truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t take everything I know about CLF as fact just as I don’t talk everything the Chan Hueng side says as fact. I mean in China itself there are to cities with contradictory CLF stories (King Mui and Fut San).
JX: I love you rocking my boat because it makes me try harder. You said the truth lies somewhere in the middle, what is this “middle” in your point of view and how do you arrive at that? As for a rivalry between King Mui and Futsan, I saw it coming miles away and it won’t get any easier, that is why we have to be even more cool headed about this history thing.
CN: Without “hard evidence” as you put it written from either Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim this is an exercise in futility. I have been to some banquets with some of the old masters and everyone knows it all and has their own story. Much like what is going on today. To me this is much like religion it all depends on where your faith lies, afterall no one can actually prove to me that Jesus rose from the grave, however this is what I was taught to believe and have faith in.
JX: I have been to many of these “gas-bag” dinners and Yum Cha as well. I always smile to the elders and make up my own mind afterward. History is not religion; it does not require faith to check out some written records. What I am doing is trying to do is to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, not to take sides which is what you think I am doing because I came from Chan Yiu-Chi’s lineage.
I believe in CLF but I am also a rational being, like if I am a Christian, I couldn’t care less whether Christ can be proved to have rose from the dead or not. But as a scientist, I would like to know just for the sake of knowing. Whatever the outcome, it should not affect me as a true believer and rock my faith. So whatever the outcome, you will see me doing my gwa, sow, chap and I am sure you will continue to do yours as well!
JosephX
Peace. [/B]
