Some thoughts on CLF dilemma

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
1

This is NOT about the history or evidence but merely ideas and theory that (in my opinion) are note worthy concepts that could apply to our current situation.

HSK was kind enough to pm about my questions so here are points and questions:

(Note I’ve posted these ideas before but unfortunately due to the clutter of other discussions it just got shafted.)

POINTS:
(1) One thing we ALL can agree on is that Chan Heung is Jeong Yim’s sifu. Correct.

(2) Since Chan Heung is Jeong Yim’s sifu (or at least of his potentially multiple sifu[s]) then all student’s of Jeong Yim would call Chan Heung “SiGung”

(3) When Jeong Yim met Chan Heung, Chan Heung was already teaching his art that he learned from Chan Yuen Wu, Li Yau San, and Choy Fok.

(4) Chan Heung already has many students and would take on Jeong Yim as one of his students.

QUESTIONS:
(1) Chan Heung is already an established master and therefore has a reputation to keep. Even if Jeong Yim learned from “Green Grass Monk” new materials that Chan Heung did not learn (now this is still an “IF”) it would be hard (if not impossible especially considering Chinese Culture and time period) for a master to learn from anyone (that is not his sifu) let alone his own student.

(2) Since Jeong Yim considered Chan Heung his sifu there is a Chinese saying “Once your sifu, Always your sifu” so it would be not be right to place him self at the same level his is own sifu (regardless of skill level), such as the title of “Co-Founder” of a system. Heck back then when your sifu sat down you had to stand.

(3) Style and systems are bound to change as the Sifu passes it along from student to student. It is evident how different practicioners would do the same things differently and perhaps even change or add to fit their experience and knowledge. The goal is to improve what you teach to your students and even creating a set. (E.g. Famed “Tiger and Crane” set was not passed down by Hung Hay Goon but still he is the ancestor of the system)

(4) In the past when a new system of kung fu comes out it is USUALLY created by ONE person. As the saying goes too many chef spoil the pot. A creation of a system is very much a personal expression of one individual and their ideas.

(5) I am sure if Chan Heung taught a long time under another name than CLF and then change it decades later something fishy would go on considering the reputation he has already built.

I feel you would really follow a Sifu because of who they are. I have a great amount of respect for my Sifu and would recognize myself accordingly with “his Sifu” being my SiGung. It doesn’t matter whether the kung fu my sifu teach is changed to fit his way or not (because he had many masters) because I follow the person not the system.

2

Personally I think it was Chan Heung that created CLF and it was Jeong Yim that made it famous.

Kind of like how Hung Ga existed before but it was Wong Fei Hung that made it famous. Or Wing Chun existed before but it was Bruce Lee that made it famous.

Jeong Yim is folk hero and he deserves his rightful place in the lineage.

However, I agree with you iron_silk that to promote Jeong Yim to some kind of founder or co-founder status flies in the face about what we know of Chinese culture.

Could there have been a “special exception” because of the situation. Hmmm…kind of doubt it because socieities don’t usually totallly ignore the underpinnings of their social order unless you’re immediate danger (think hurricane katrina danger).

Now on the other hand I kind of question the Chan Family concept that Choy Fook was really Ching Cho Wo Sheun aka Green Grass Monk. But how can we verify that?

The lineage that my Sifu gave to me and is on our website looks like this

http://www.makskungfu.com/choylayfut/ChoyLayFut.html

Choy Fook, Li Yau San and Ching Cho Wo Sheun are the teachers of Chan Heung.

Jeong Yim is the student of Chan Heung.

Chan Yuen Woo doesn’t factor into our lineage but maybe he should?

Anyways, I don’t really care who people put as Chan Heung’s teachers but I do accept that he is the founder. No one would probably give a rat’s ass about CLF though if Jeong Yim hadn’t been his student.

Was the fame that Jeong Yim brought to CLF a good thing though? Maybe if CLF had just stayed with the Chan Family it would’ve been better because the lineage wouldn’t have become so convoluted and you’d have a situation like with Chen Taiji where the isolation in Chen Village kept the lineage somewhat pure.

Any art that becomes hugely popular splinters into fragments as people try to claim power, fame and money for themselves.

3

My take is that Jeurng Yim created his branch of CLF in the same manner Tam Sam created his just at different periods in time. Jeurng Yim could be considered the founder of Hung Sing CLF just like Tam Sam is the founder of Buk Sing. Now in terms of CLF as whole they would be part of the generation. What is so wrong with that?

Someone always comes before the other, it doesn’t mean there kung fu was better or worse just that they came first. A student can surpass the sifu, that to me is a true sign of a good teacher.

4

Thanks for replying!

Thanks guys for taking the time to read this!

I just wish all CLF could agree as we do.

By the way Fu-Pow nice video…certainly different from the Ba Guo Sum set in Vancouver.

5

I wonder though…

I wonder what HSKwarrior thinks? If he chooses to respond.

6

iron silk,

remember something first. I’m only speaking based on what i’ve researched to this point. Based on that, i’ll offer my opinions, if that’s cool.

  1. According to our branch, Jeong Yim returned to Chan Heung to pay respects. During his visit Jeong Yim somehow managed to show Chan Heung the gung fu the GGM taught him. It is said that Chan Heung was impressed with his students new skills. Out of respect for all Chan Heung did for him he returned the favor by sharing the GGM’s gung fu. This created a special kind of relationship, one more on the lines of fellow classmates as opposed to being once a student/teacher relationship.

It is only our guess to why and how that relatioship was reached, it just was according to our branch.

  1. I don’t think Jeong Yim put himself there as co-founder, but according to our branch the two of them added in what jeong yim learned and then created many more new techniques in addition to what was already created by chan heung. Since Choy Lee Fut ( and truthfully we don’t even know if the hung sing branch called the style choy lee fut for the first few generations) was taken a bit further because of Jeong Yim’s contributions, he became co-creator. Then Jeong Yim took his leave, went back to Fut San, and then at the that point it is believed that the two branches began separately developing techniques unique to the individual branches.

In my opinion, that is where the branches split and two branches were formed. Chan Heung began teaching his gung fu only to his fellow villages with chan surnames in King Mui. while Jeong Yim was separately developing his gung fu under his branch. Once again, that is where the split originated.

  1. you’re correct.

  2. i don’t know how to answer

  3. Pls explain

as to your final comments, history is only a small part of gung fu. What really matters is how good your gung fu is, but there will be some who want to know the history, and if i don’t record the oral history as it was passed down to me and i never tell anyone else, then my history is forgotten while the other guy made sure his history will be remembered for all time.

All one needs to truly know is that there are 3 branches of CLF each with their own stories of their own origin, and somewhere in that origin lies their connection to the founders of their branch.

peace.

7

Quoting Hsk "iron silk,

remember something first. I’m only speaking based on what i’ve researched to this point. Based on that, i’ll offer my opinions, if that’s cool.

  1. According to our branch, Jeong Yim returned to Chan Heung to pay respects. During his visit Jeong Yim somehow managed to show Chan Heung the gung fu the GGM taught him. It is said that Chan Heung was impressed with his students new skills. Out of respect for all Chan Heung did for him he returned the favor by sharing the GGM’s gung fu. This created a special kind of relationship, one more on the lines of fellow classmates as opposed to being once a student/teacher relationship.

It is only our guess to why and how that relatioship was reached, it just was according to our branch.

  1. I don’t think Jeong Yim put himself there as co-founder, but according to our branch the two of them added in what jeong yim learned and then created many more new techniques in addition to what was already created by chan heung. Since Choy Lee Fut ( and truthfully we don’t even know if the hung sing branch called the style choy lee fut for the first few generations) was taken a bit further because of Jeong Yim’s contributions, he became co-creator. Then Jeong Yim took his leave, went back to Fut San, and then at the that point it is believed that the two branches began separately developing techniques unique to the individual branches.

In my opinion, that is where the branches split and two branches were formed. Chan Heung began teaching his gung fu only to his fellow villages with chan surnames in King Mui. while Jeong Yim was separately developing his gung fu under his branch. Once again, that is where the split originated.

  1. you’re correct.

  2. i don’t know how to answer

  3. Pls explain

as to your final comments, history is only a small part of gung fu. What really matters is how good your gung fu is, but there will be some who want to know the history, and if i don’t record the oral history as it was passed down to me and i never tell anyone else, then my history is forgotten while the other guy made sure his history will be remembered for all time.

All one needs to truly know is that there are 3 branches of CLF each with their own stories of their own origin, and somewhere in that origin lies their connection to the founders of their branch.

peace."

Hsk,

  1. Are you now telling a story “it just is” without reasoning?
    Quote:“It is only our guess to why and how that relatioship was reached, it just was according to our branch.”

  2. Quote:"Since Choy Lee Fut ( and truthfully we don’t even know if the hung sing branch called the style choy lee fut for the first few generations) was taken a bit further because of Jeong Yim’s contributions, he became co-creator. "

Are you telling us that your not sure whether for “some generations” what a branch (Jeong Yim’s) taught was “CHOY LEE FUT” ?
Yet you claim Jeong Yim took CLF “a bit further” and “became” “co-creator”?

What kind of reasoning and logic is that?

But what Chan Heung taught his son and students was “Choy Lee Fut”. It didn’t suddently “became CLF” after “a few generations”, did it?

  1. Not all Chan Heung’s students were surnamed “Chan”. What about Long ji choy?

  2. Quote:“if i don’t record the oral history as it was passed down to me and i never tell anyone else, then my history is forgotten while the other guy made sure his history will be remembered for all time.”

Now this “oral history” is not really history is it" If it is not supported by evidence, it is just “myth” isn’t it?

Now myth that is least plausible amongst a selection of “myths” or “oral histories” would more likely be “the one forgotten” naturally.And that myth deserves it too if any of them should be “forgotten”. Right?

  1. Just because you “tell” a story, it does not mean it will have “an equal standing” if it is more internally inconsistent, more “unsupported by evidence” and more “unlikely”. Right?
8

Another thing.
If CLF was established in 1836 and Chan Heung’s students (2nd generation CLF) taught CLF in various areas since around 1848… and you don’t know whether what was taught by the Hung sing (futsan?) branch was known as OR CALLED CLF FOR FEW GENERATIONS, then how can you call Jeong Yim “co-creator” or say that he"took CLF a bit further"? How do you know what the futsan group taught was CLF? How could Jeong Yim have co-founded a style which was not called by its name in his and some subsequent (how many?) generations in HIS lineage?

9

A question: How can you “co-found” a style with your teacher if what you teach and for some generations subsequently in your lineage is NOT KNOWN BY THE SAME NAME AS THE STYLE OF YOUR TEACHER?

10

If whilst others are teaching CLF in various places, and it is UNCERTAIN whether what you and your group (for some generations) taught was known as CLF,…then HOW can you have co-founded or founded CLF? HOW MUCH could you have contributed to the style?

11

Hi Frank,

It is really unfortunate that the historian of your branch told you that the Green Grass Monk was the same person as Cai De-Zhong, one of the five legendary founder of the Hung Mun Secret Society, because it is written in the Hung Mun Ji (the History of the Hung Mun) that Cai served the famous General Zheng Cheng-Gong from about 1661 - 1672 and the the society was founded in around 1680, almost 150 years before Chan Heung founded CLF, so there is no way the GGM could have taught Jeong Yim, they lived more than 100 years apart! Besides, there is no proof that Cai actually existed, he was a figure in the Hung Mun story made famous by later day fiction writers.

In case you need evidence, I have snipped out the relevant bit from the official history of the Qing Dynasty, you need a Chinese reader to read it and I have underlined the name and the dates. The quote came from this website:

http://www.qinghistory.cn/qinghistory/research/Index.aspx?id=143&articleid=2640

:
1947“”“”(1661)“”U[/U]

Back to the drawing board Frank! :smiley:

EJ

PS: If you are interested in finding out more about Cai De-Zhong in Chinese source, here is the Google search page for your interest:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=蔡德忠&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&start=0&sa=N

12

i can’t read that joseph,

but i am always open to knew information. this you don’t know about me, brother joseph, but as you would, i would like to check over that info, first before i make some conclusion.

if you can find more that just one of those projects to back that up joseph, i would love to read that, as well.

joseph, who was the author, and what was the purpose of this work?

don’t think the battle is over, this is only a minor set back.

but like i said, if this new info is done by only one person i will be skeptical though

thanks for the new stuff, joseph, that helps in my research.

13

but oh,

and i don’t see any dates specifically for Cai Dezhong, so you can’t verifiably say that he existed during the 1600’s. However, for one, this is a step closer to verifying my story. if it is completely wrong, i am man enough to admit it, because i could say "now if know for sure, and that is put to rest. but as of yet, i am no down and out.

See, so far from what i have read is that the “True originators” were during the early 1600’s or possibly even before that. Just like the Red Turban Revolt, it was much older and in other places before it got to the fut san area where jeong yim and his people got involved.

so, what i am saying is that it is said that cai dezhong came and resurrected it through the shaolin temple. And this document, at least the one i am reading mentions the temples just as is in my story.

still checking out those pages and will be back to give updates to what i’ve learned.

thanks joseph, this is great, and it will help me more in my quest to learn the truth. as i have said, i may strongly believe what i do, but i am always open to learning the truth, because then once i know its the truth, i won’t let go.

peace. be right back

14

Hi Frank,

This came from the academic paper of the National Institute for Historical Research on Qing Dynasty. They are a government body located in Beijing. The research was published in the monthly aceademic journal, the 4th. issue in year 2000. It is about the latest you can get from the government.

No, it is not done by one person but by a committee of experts. They get paid to do this for the government, because the government, for security reasons, has a vested interest in finding out the backgrounds of any secret societies in China.

You must have friends who can read Chinese, get them to do some research and translations for you, before you plastered all these false information on the web for the whole world to see. All I did was to do a Google search and tones of information came out about Cai De-Zhong.

Interesting, nothing on the existence or location of Ba Pai Shan in Guangxi, only Kung Fu legends.

Frank, with the informations available on the www these days, you just cannot make up stories like that.

Cheers,

EJ

15

Joe, where does it actually state that he lived during the 1600’s like the page says he served that emperor?

Served that emperor…do you think that the word “served” can substitute for supported? since all of the southern chinese wanted to overthrow the evil ching empire so that they may restore the ming, do you think they would also claim to be serving the emperor you mentioned because of their love and devotion towards that ruler?

i think what is being said is that anyone who supports the previous ruler of the country can safely say they serve him and only him.

see what i mean?

16

now, joseph, would you be willing to publicly apologize for your mistake if i can prove there is or even was a Pak Pai mountain?

Now, joseph, here we go in circles, where did this information come from that the government paid this panel to do the research?

you know i am in the works of working with the government in fut san who also has records, but it is a bit of work trying to get info out of them.

so joseph, so far, you have only set me back a minor step. nothing too big.
the race is still on.

what you don’t realize is that i am open to being wrong. i am only human.

but my site stays up until i am completely wrong, until then, i’m sticking with it. :smiley:

To all those who are watching, if joseph happens to be completely right, this isn’t some life or death battle, it is two clf men working at straightening out the very hazy past of our great system. i will take anything that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and when all the doubts are clear, i will change my account and work at changing it in fut san with the hsk headquarters.

17

The Hung mun

ok,

According to joseph, the Hung Mun was established in 1680. With that i checked the hung mun book and this is what i came up with:

The 1st great founders:

Chiu Hung Ying
Hong Kai Cheng

Great Founders

Chan Kan Nan–Master
Thian Yu Hong–Vanguard
Wan Yan Loong–maintains the right and destroys traitors

Foundresses

Lady Pi
Lady Kin
Lady Koh

5 Ancestors

Thsai -Teh Chung–the Green Grass Monk
Wu Dedi
Fang Dai Hong
Li Sik Hoi
Ma Chiu Sing

5 Tiger Generals

Wu Thian Qing
Li Chih-chih
Hong Thai Sui
Yau Pieh ? (wrote down sloppily)
Lin Yun Chow

Now, if the hung mun was established in 1680, with the 1st great founders, the great founders, and the foundresses, Cai DeZhong and the rest of the 5 ancestors came much later.

this information is from the hung society book, which was first printed in 1885, and one of the first kinds to infiltrate this secret organization.

18

Hi Frank,

Looks like I have to do the translation for you, here is the relevant text:

(1661) “”(1672)

“In 1661, Zheng Cheng-Gong was stationed in Taiwan, in order to continue the revolution, he instructed his general Cai De-Zhong and others to travel back to the mainland to spread the revolution by enlisting as monks in the Potian Shaolin Temple in Fujian. They were to co-operate with Zheng’s nephew Zheng Jun-Da but in 1672 the Xi-lu barbarians attacked from the west and Cai and Zheng went to meet them and defeated them. Shortly after, they were ambushed and fled to the Wan Shan Temple in Wan Yun Shan (Mountain) and met up with Wan Yun-Long and Chen Jin-Nam. Subsequently, the Ge Lao Hui (the fore-runner of Hung Mun Society) was formed in in the 12th yeaqr of the Reign of Emperor Yong Zheng (1734) in the town of Ai-Zhou in Sichuan province.”

You said in your website:

“Around 1831, 17 year old Jeong Yim was on a quest to find an elusive monk who went by the name of Green Grass. He lived somewhere on Mt Pak Pai at the Shajian Temple and Jeong Yim was hoping to complete his gung fu training under such a great master. Once he found the Green Grass Monk he proceeded to learn the deadly art of Fut Gar…By the time Jeong Yim learned all that the Green Grass Monk had to teach, his sifu still had one more gift to give him. Jeong Yim completely supported the revolution, and with this the Green Grass Monk revealed that he was none other than Cai DeZhong, Chief founder of the Hung Society.”

As you can, Cai was in the Fujian Shaolin Temple somewhere between 1661 and 1672 and the Sichuan Ge Lao Hui was found in 1734, when Cai was at least 90. So there is a huge between 1831 and 1661 - 1734 for Jeong Yim to have met up with Cai De-Zhong aka the Green Grass Monk and learned the “deadly art of Fut Gar” from him.

By the way, if Jeong was born in 1824 (Jeong lived from 1824 - 1893, according to Futshan HSG history on the web), he would have been only 7 in 1831.

EJ

19

Hsk,
There you go again…Remember you told us there were no written records of green grass monk from that era, this secret man eludes the qing government and the writings of the period…yet you bring us this reference to a BOOK…published in ENGLAND and written by TWO ENGLISHMEN… and somehow managed to “infiltrate” the secret society with information about REAL IDENTITY AND OCCUPATION OF A “FOUNDER”…

YOU THINK MANY WILL BUY THAT “SOURCE”?

IF YOU CANNOT SHOW EVIDENCE OF REFERENCE TO A PAK PAI MOUNTAIN OUTSIDE OF YOUR KUNGFU LEGENDS AND “BY WORD OF MOUTH” STORIES…HOW CAN YOU “PROVE” ITS EXISTENCE?

IF YOU CAN’T EVEN POINT THIS MOUNTAIN ON A MAP, HOW CAN YOU SO IRRESPONSIBLY REFER TO IT AS PART OF “HISTORY” AS IF YOU HAVE CERTAINTY ABOUT ITS EXISTENCE?

BTW It is not “proof” to bring out your “General” lacey website mentioned a friend who knew… and you can’t just point to any mountain and say “that is it”, because likely people can further investigate a name of a place and its previous names etc if there were any alterations through history…

And don’t give us something like “Wudang mountain is Songshan mountain in disguise, it is “possible” people changed the name to hide location identity because they needed to hide from the government…”

You can probably guess what are possible outcomes of making up something and try to change known information through some “convenient” excuse with no evidence to back up claims…

20

OH…SNAP!! :eek: