CLF manuscript difference!

[Sunyang]

Hello friends,
I've a question, wich are the differents about this manuscript http://www.chinachoyleefut.com/clf.php?cmd=4571dfd30e682
And Sifu Doc Fai Wong old manual?
http://www.plumblossom.net/PhotoAlbum/JiangMenScripts/ (From Jiangmen or King Mui)
They are all by Chan Heung or from is soon and grand soon? (Koon Pak and Yu Chi)

Peace!

SY

[CLFNole]

There is nothing that I know of that is actually from Chan Hueng.

I believe and XJ will correct me if I am wrong, that the old kuen po's (kung fu manuscripts) were all written by Chan Yiu Chi.

[Sunyang]

There is nothing that I know of that is actually from Chan Hueng.

I believe and XJ will correct me if I am wrong, that the old kuen po's (kung fu manuscripts) were all written by Chan Yiu Chi.

I agree with you but why some Master say that all the manuscript come from the founder?
In my country some student of Doc Fai Wong say this.

SY

[Ben Gash]

The manuals you've posted from DFW represent the transmission from Chan On Pak via Chan Yen to Wong Gong.
These http://www.plumblossom.net/PhotoAlbum/KingMuiVillage/kingmuiscripts.html
represent the the transmission of Chan Koon Pak through Chan Yu Chi, to Hu Yuen Cho and Chan Sun Chui.
I can't read the text on the other one. Is it a group affiliated with Chen Yong Fa? In which case it'll be the second route of transmission (Chen Yong Fa's father was Chan Sun Chui's older brother)

[CLFNole]

But all written by later generations by neither Chan Heung, Chan Koon Pak or Chan On Pak.

[Sunyang]

The manuals you've posted from DFW represent the transmission from Chan On Pak via Chan Yen to Wong Gong.
These http://www.plumblossom.net/PhotoAlbum/KingMuiVillage/kingmuiscripts.html
represent the the transmission of Chan Koon Pak through Chan Yu Chi, to Hu Yuen Cho and Chan Sun Chui.
I can't read the text on the other one. Is it a group affiliated with Chen Yong Fa? In which case it'll be the second route of transmission (Chen Yong Fa's father was Chan Sun Chui's older brother)

Thank's Ben, I agree with you too, then this manuscript were written by the Chan Heung heirs (Koon Pak and Yu Chi), not Chan Heung?

SY

[Ben Gash]

The Scripts from the Plumblossom site were written by Chan Yiu Chi and Chan Yen.

[Sunyang]

The Scripts from the Plumblossom site were written by Chan Yiu Chi and Chan Yen.

Good information, thank Ben!

SY

[hskwarrior]

lmao!!!!!!

[hskwarrior]

The Scripts from the Plumblossom site were written by Chan Yiu Chi and Chan Yen.
__________________

oh, so that source must be dudious and unreliably tainted!!!!!!:D

[Sunyang]

lmao!!!!!!

Hi Frank :)

SY

[Ben Gash]

From a Kung Fu perspective no, from a historical perspective it is always sensible to acknowledge potential bias, but there is no escaping the fact that the authors had access to primary sources (i.e. people who actually knew Chan heung and Jeong Yim, were present when certain events took place and so on).

[hskwarrior]

Hello there sir!!! :D

Thank you for participating. it's nice to have new blood. regardless of historical stance, you bring fresh air here. :cool: shhhhhh.....but its getting kinda boring with the same old characters......

[hskwarrior]

from a historical perspective it is always sensible to acknowledge potential bias

oh, i acknowledge that......you ARE very biased. :rolleyes:

(But so am i :D)


but there is no escaping the fact that the authors had access to primary sources (i.e. people who actually knew Chan heung and Jeong Yim, were present when certain events took place and so on).

Ok now.....so, why is it more plausible for the Chan Heung line in regards to PRIMARY SOURCES when one of Jeung Yim's original students (Yuen Hai) transmitted our history to Professor Lau Bun, who, then transmitted it to Professor Jew Leong, who also mentored me in our history?

[Ben Gash]

Because it was recorded at an earlier stage which minimises distortion.

[hskwarrior]

as a matter of fact.....

How does your Chan Family line PRIMARY SOURCES make it better than Jeung Yim's primary sources such as Chan Ngau Sing, Yuen Hai, Lau Bun, Tong Sek, He Xiang, Qian Wei Fang? Lei Yan? Lui Chun? Tam Sam?

[hskwarrior]

Because it was recorded at an earlier stage which minimises distortion.

LMAO......it was documented sometime between after 1900 no later than 1965.

The Hung Mun was established around 1799 with their own history documented, and it's history was documented by a secondary source prior to 1866....less than 65 years after it was founded. My history is much older than yours, and was documented closer to the source than your 3rd generation accounts of MY HISTORY. it's not even YOURS. ITS OURS......

TELL ME.......when do you think FUT SAN HSK folk will believe CHAN FAMILY HISTORY?

I'll wait!!!!!

[Ben Gash]

A) we were comparing one thing and now you're comparing it to something else.
B)Why are you derailing this thread
C)What provenance do you have for your Hung Mun sources? I have literature written by St Paul, does that prove the existence of God? The fact that you're Hung Mun sources detail a man who was almost certainly a myth, coupled with the fact that distortion of history to further political ends was what the Hung Mun were all about, makes them highly suspect as a source :rolleyes:

[iron_silk]

In my opinion none of it is reliable! :p

There it is said...now that it's established that no one is correct...can we finally get along?



I mean for example: Bruce Lee vs Wong Jack Man

Two completely polar opposite stories but it wasn't that long ago and people who wittnessed the event can't even agree on anything other then the two actually met and that's where all the similarities ended.

Can you go and interview all who attended and still find the truth? I think not!

[Ben Gash]

It's true, but whereas I am more than happy to acknowledge the weaknesses in the Chan family version, Frank will not hear any criticism of his story or anyone questionning his "evidence".

[hskwarrior]

was almost certainly a myth

that's like saying someone is ALMOST PREGNANT.....or ALMOST THERE......

hahahahahahaha

you don't sound toooo convincing.

[hskwarrior]

I have literature written by St Paul, does that prove the existence of God?

Don't you have literature from the Grand son of Chan Heung? would St. Paul be the grandson of God, and jesus the father?

[Ben Gash]

Really? Because it should really give you pause for thought, you're trying to prove that Jeong Yim's supposed 3rd teacher was someone you can't even prove existed.

[hskwarrior]

It's true, but whereas I am more than happy to acknowledge the weaknesses in the Chan family version, Frank will not hear any criticism of his story or anyone questionning his "evidence".

Yum yum yum....chomp chomp chomp........boy that's good!!! :D

Under the right circumstances, I am always willing to see it from another perspective. but if that perspective is clearly wrong, but trying to force me to believe their history over mine.......i ain't listening to sh1t!!!!!!

what? what? what? YEEEEEAAAAHHHHHH!

[hskwarrior]

Because it should really give you pause for thought, you're trying to prove that Jeong Yim's supposed 3rd teacher was someone you can't even prove existed.

how can you prove Choy Fook was real? you know how we know Chan Heung was real even thought there is no picture of him? because of his blood line.

The Hung Shun Tong aka the Ghee Kung Tong is the bloodline of the monk Ching Cho. and today, my lodge in sf alone is just a few years short of being as old as CLF itself. I am a member of "CHING CHO's" legacy........now what?

[hskwarrior]

how can you prove Choy Fook was real?

so if you can't prove Choy Fook was real, do we start calling Chan Heung a liar for saying he learned from a monk he can't prove existed?

[Mano Mano]

What's with all the flak, neither branches have any kuen po written by either chan heung or jeung ah yim

[hskwarrior]

Frank will not hear any criticism of his story or anyone questionning his "evidence".

you're not questioning........you put it under a microscope and look for microfibers.....because you want to tear it down. nothing more. its only to prove your own historical stance about your own lineage. that's all.

[hskwarrior]

What's with all the flak, neither branches have any kuen po written by either chan heung or jeung ah yim

that's the whole thing. only when Fut San HSK went public with our history did Chan family people here on this forum got their panties all bunched up.

it's our history. and without any solid, beyond the shadow of a doubt, 100% accuracy that any of our histories are wrong......we should just let that branch have their history.

there are always two sides to a coin. unless someone purposefully prints one double headed one.

[Ben Gash]

Choy Fook is real in that Choy Fook is Chan Heung's third teacher, noone really tries to assert anything other than that. Which is a world away from what you're trying to assert Frank.

[Ben Gash]

that's the whole thing. only when Fut San HSK went public with our history did Chan family people here on this forum got their panties all bunched up.

it's our history. and without any solid, beyond the shadow of a doubt, 100% accuracy that any of our histories are wrong......we should just let that branch have their history.

there are always two sides to a coin. unless someone purposefully prints one double headed one.

Except that your branch history implies negatives about the other branches :rolleyes:

[hskwarrior]

Choy Fook is real in that Choy Fook is Chan Heung's third teacher,

how can you prove he existed? do you have Choy Fook's birth record? Do you have anything of any real significance that Choy Fook isn't a made up fictional monk used by the Chan Family?

[hskwarrior]

Except that your branch history implies negatives about the other branches

you're sounding like a bitter, spoiled rotten, snotty nosed brat. hahahahaha

[iron_silk]

how can you prove he existed? do you have Choy Fook's birth record? Do you have anything of any real significance that Choy Fook isn't a made up fictional monk used by the Chan Family?

Whether Choy Fook existed or not it doesn't take anything away or add anything to...so to say he does exist and a teacher of Chan Heung seems like a fact because Chan Heung isn't riding Choy Fook's coattail by that claim.

[CLFNole]

as a matter of fact.....

How does your Chan Family line PRIMARY SOURCES make it better than Jeung Yim's primary sources such as Chan Ngau Sing, Yuen Hai, Lau Bun, Tong Sek, He Xiang, Qian Wei Fang? Lei Yan? Lui Chun? Tam Sam?

I think if you actually received your information from these sources directly people might believe you more. But secondary information that comes from the internet of Hung Mun isn't one of the primary sources you mentioned above.

The fact that Hung Mun data mentions a Ching Cho is great but does it detail and document he was the kung fu teacher of Jeong Yim? How do you know it is in fact the same Ching Cho? Afterall many of these old master had more nicknames than I can count. You have taken various pieces and put them together in a way you want. Again you have come up with a "theory" not proof of actual history. If you present it as just that a "theory" people might would accept it more.

[Sunyang]

Sorry...I did not want to raise a nest...
My thread was only for info!

SY

[hskwarrior]

lance,

you're right. it is my theory. based on my research. Do i say my new research was part of Hung Sing history? No. what it is, is evidence to back up my claim. When people said there was no such person as CHING CHO, its because they didn't know about the Hung Mun foundation. But, I did find an overabundant amount of information on the person named Ching Cho. Much of it coincides with Fut San Hung Sing history.

Now, the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon will have an answer to how jeung yim came about getting the name of Hung Sing. or a better understanding of the origins of that name. And, that name is deeply rooted into the Hung Mun and is found on the banners of flags belonging to the Hung Mun.

The Fut San HSK has always said that Ching Cho (Green Grass) was Jeung Hung Sing's teacher. This was passed down from Lau Bun through our lineage. Doesn't matter that it was orally transmitted until Jew Leong's time. Most of Chan family archives come from oral accounts.

Now, what i do have are actual historical record from the Hung Mun, and have access to much more because i am a ranking member. I also have secondary sources to follow up on that with, some of which are very old indeed. I am a member of the legacy started by the person named Ching Cho.

So when you weight what i got, compared to that of the Chan Family......I'm sticking with my theory.

We will trust our ancetors, while the Chan Family trust theirs.

[Mano Mano]

Sorry...I did not want to raise a nest...
My thread was only for info!

SY

You’ve done nothing you need to apologise for.

[Mano Mano]

lance,

you're right. it is my theory. based on my research. Do i say my new research was part of Hung Sing history? No. what it is, is evidence to back up my claim. When people said there was no such person as CHING CHO, its because they didn't know about the Hung Mun foundation. But, I did find an overabundant amount of information on the person named Ching Cho. Much of it coincides with Fut San Hung Sing history.

Now, the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon will have an answer to how jeung yim came about getting the name of Hung Sing. or a better understanding of the origins of that name. And, that name is deeply rooted into the Hung Mun and is found on the banners of flags belonging to the Hung Mun.

The Fut San HSK has always said that Ching Cho (Green Grass) was Jeung Hung Sing's teacher. This was passed down from Lau Bun through our lineage. Doesn't matter that it was orally transmitted until Jew Leong's time. Most of Chan family archives come from oral accounts.

Now, what i do have are actual historical record from the Hung Mun, and have access to much more because i am a ranking member. I also have secondary sources to follow up on that with, some of which are very old indeed. I am a member of the legacy started by the person named Ching Cho.

So when you weight what i got, compared to that of the Chan Family......I'm sticking with my theory.

We will trust our ancetors, while the Chan Family trust theirs.

You’ve shown that there was a person in the hung mun called ching cho, however there is only oral tradition so far to say that jeung ah yim was a direct disciple of the hung mun ching cho & there is no evidence to show that ching cho was nothing more that a political activist & that he taught martial arts.

[hskwarrior]

however there is only oral tradition so far to say that jeung ah yim was a direct disciple of the hung mun ching cho

right. almost all history is oral before it gets written down. most of Chan Heung's history was oral until Chan Yiu Chi decided to document it. that had to be more that 60 years after the creation of Chan Family CLF.

See the info passed down within the Lau Bun lineage came from Yuen Hai, and has been orally preserved and never changed. When comparing to the history of HUNG SING world wide according to how it was passed down within their school, it was all the same.


there is no evidence to show that ching cho was nothing more that a political activist & that he taught martial arts.

and there is NOTHING to say to the contrary.

however, all the info about Ching Cho, the Hung Mun, and Jeung Yim coincide. perfectly.

see, if i were to listen to the Chan Family account, it was chan heung who sent jeung hung sing to fut san to take over a school from the guy who went blind. there is no indication from them that Jeung Hung Sing was a hung mun member.

Yet, Jeung Hung Sing opened his school officially in 1851, trained Hung Mun fighters in Fut San, and took his students into the Tai Ping Rebellion. Evidence of Jeung Hung Sing's connection to the Hung MUN is EVERYWHERE. From the set up of his alter, to hand signals, body postures, revolutionary sentiments found in the forms, hung mun poems found on the walls of his schools, CHING CHO, and the fact that the HUNG VICTORY and the new name of GLORIOUS VICTORY is directly connected to the Hung Mun is far more than enough to trust the Hung Sing lineage more so than the Chan Family account.

[CLFNole]

"there is no evidence to show that ching cho was nothing more that a political activist & that he taught martial arts.

and there is NOTHING to say to the contrary.

however, all the info about Ching Cho, the Hung Mun, and Jeung Yim coincide. perfectly."

This whole thing in itself wraps up everything. The is no proof of anything and just becuase things "conicide" doesn't make them factual. You merely have a theory and nothing else. The problem is you can't push a theory as history without "real" documented evidence to prove the theory.

[hskwarrior]

This whole thing in itself wraps up everything. The is no proof of anything and just becuase things "conicide" doesn't make them factual.

The same can be said about the chan family. IF chan heung wrote it, how do you know he wrote it? are there signed affidavits? notary publics? video?

i mean, if chan family can have their history, we can have ours. it's just history. so why even trip off of it if it doesn't affect your gung fu today?

Still, i got more information about Ching Cho than previously known. It won't change.


The problem is you can't push a theory as history without "real" documented evidence to prove the theory.

Chan Heung's history is just as theoretical. period. nuff said.

[hskwarrior]

The problem is you can't push a theory as history without "real" documented evidence to prove the theory.

Ok, then tell me what you would be sufficient enough for you to believe?

I mean, you too believe the chan family.......

[CLFNole]

Frank, here is why your logic is flawed.

Like it or not the Chan Family's history (right or wrong) was recognized first (in China and generally worldwide) so they "beat you to the punch" sort to speak.

Having your history is fine and like I said I am not saying theirs (Chan Family) is right or wrong but it was there first so for your history to be accepted if things contradict what they have you need "real" irrefutable evidence to be taken as fact. Herein lies the root of your problem as you have pieced together various information (which I commend you for doing) but without anything that really ties it together as fact. Since it is just a "theory" it cannot over-ride or debunk something that is already recognized.

I go back to the group that says we never landed on the moon. The history was there first they came up with a variety of claims with no real evidence or evidence debunked by NASA and although they are still out there and hold to their beliefs most people think of them as a fringe group.

[hskwarrior]

Ok, then tell me what you would be sufficient enough for you to believe?

what proof are you asking for?


it was there first

The information about Ching Cho was first and much older than Chan family archives.


Since it is just a "theory" it cannot over-ride or debunk something that is already recognized.

Right, but, once you consider all of the information, you may come to the same conclusion that i have.

See, what i was looking for was CHING CHO.....and I found him. Now, Jeung Hung Sing's teacher was Ching Cho. There is no other CHING CHO in southern China, as the name CHING CHO isn't buddhist in its origins.

Still, the Fut San Hung Sing lineage will never stop claiming Ching Cho as Jeung Hung Sing's teacher, who was a known member of the Hung Mun. Now, when people ask about Ching Cho, we will have more about this character than previously known. I have a bibliography in my book coming out, it lists all the sources to support my claims.

If no one tries to take an honest attempt to truly research CLF's history then we will always be left with what we know so far.

[hskwarrior]

Since it is just a "theory" it cannot over-ride or debunk something that is already recognized.

but, there is nothing about CHING CHO coming from Chan Family, although it does from the HUNG SING clan. so, in regards to Chan Family archives, it holds nothing on Ching Cho and very very little on Jeung Hung Sing.

I know joseph will try to push this 3rd generation chan clan account of MY lineage, but pls tell me why i should believe theirs over my own?

i've got more evidence to prove my claim than the chan family has to disprove it.

[CLFNole]

You are still missing my point. It has nothing to do with what evidence I want from you but rather evidence you have to prove to get accepted history changed. The Chan Family history is recognized and was there first (right or wrong). To get your history accepted as "history" and not some crackpot theory has to have real evidence. "Prove me wrong" will not get it done becuase someone with ask "prove yourself right first".

Since you and Fut San are attempting to present a different history the burden of proof lies with you not the people who have a history already recognized. You can't merely throw sh1t up against a wall and see what sticks.

[hskwarrior]

CHAN FAMIY HAS NOTHING BUT A 3RD GENERATION ACCOUNT ON MY HISTORY WHICH ISN'T EVEN CORRECT.


The Chan Family history is recognized and was there first

bY WHOM? AND BY WHOM IN THE FUT SAN HUNG SING KWOON?


To get your history accepted as "history" and not some crackpot theory has to have real evidence.

AGAIN, AND FOR THE LAST TIME.....WHAT ARE YOU CONSIDERING REAL EVIDENCE IN THIS SITUATION? DON'T LOOK FOR EVIDENCE THAT JEUNG HUNG SING WAS CHING CHO'S STUDENT......THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF THAT TYPE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE HUNG MUN. I MEAN I AM A RANKED MEMBER, BUT THERE IS NO PAPERWORK TO PROVE THIS.....I HAVE MY CERTIFICATE......BUT BECAUSE THERE IS NO WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS DOES IT MEAN I AM NOT A RANKED MEMBER IN THE HUNG MUN?

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THE CHAN FAMILY HAVE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS THAT CHAN HEUNG LEARNED FROM CHAN YUEN WU, CHOY FOOK OR LEE YAU SAN? FAMILY ARCHIVES?


"Prove me wrong" will not get it done becuase someone with ask "prove yourself right first".

hAHAHA.....I GOT EVIDENCE THAT SAYS CHING CHO WAS FONG DAI HUNG, FROM HISTORICAL RESEARCH, TO ACTUAL HUNG MUN RECORDS. ALL OF THIS SUPPORTS MY CLAIM. I WILL PRESENT THEM IN MY BOOK, AND IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISPUTE IT.....THEY WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN "IT'S A MYTH" OR COMPLAINTS, OR WHATEVER.

YOU...THEY.....OR WHO EVER WILL HAVE TO PROVE MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

FOR EXAMPLE.....

THE BANNER THAT HAS THE SLOGAN WHICH IS A SYNONYM FOR HUNG VICTORY......I WILL PRESENT IT. YOU WILL SEE THE CONNECTION......AND IF YOU DOUBT IT.....THEN ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT WRONG. I WILL HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH EVIDENCE FROM THE VERY HUNG MUN LODGE FOUNDED BY THE ONE NAMED CHING CHO.....ARTIFACTS OF THAT LODGE AS IN CERTIFICATES, FLAGS, AND SO FORTH.

WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFO FOUND IN REGARDS TO CHING CHO.....IT'S NOT MY PLACE ANYMORE TO PROVE IT. IT'S OUT THERE, AND IF YOU WANT TO DISPROVE IT, YOU WILL HAVE TO RESEARCH IT FIRST. WHICH I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T.

I DON'T TRUST CHAN FAMILY ARCHIVES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR WRITTEN BY THE THIRD GENERATION MASTER OF ANOTHER FAMILY. I WILL TURN TO MY FAMILY FIRST, THEN ASK YOUR FAMILY WHAT IT KNOWS. BUT NOT BEFORE I KNOW MY FIRST.

[Mano Mano]

CHAN FAMIY HAS NOTHING BUT A 3RD GENERATION ACCOUNT ON MY HISTORY WHICH ISN'T EVEN CORRECT.



bY WHOM? AND BY WHOM IN THE FUT SAN HUNG SING KWOON?



AGAIN, AND FOR THE LAST TIME.....WHAT ARE YOU CONSIDERING REAL EVIDENCE IN THIS SITUATION? DON'T LOOK FOR EVIDENCE THAT JEUNG HUNG SING WAS CHING CHO'S STUDENT......THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF THAT TYPE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE HUNG MUN. I MEAN I AM A RANKED MEMBER, BUT THERE IS NO PAPERWORK TO PROVE THIS.....I HAVE MY CERTIFICATE......BUT BECAUSE THERE IS NO WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS DOES IT MEAN I AM NOT A RANKED MEMBER IN THE HUNG MUN?

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THE CHAN FAMILY HAVE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS THAT CHAN HEUNG LEARNED FROM CHAN YUEN WU, CHOY FOOK OR LEE YAU SAN? FAMILY ARCHIVES?



hAHAHA.....I GOT EVIDENCE THAT SAYS CHING CHO WAS FONG DAI HUNG, FROM HISTORICAL RESEARCH, TO ACTUAL HUNG MUN RECORDS. ALL OF THIS SUPPORTS MY CLAIM. I WILL PRESENT THEM IN MY BOOK, AND IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISPUTE IT.....THEY WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN "IT'S A MYTH" OR COMPLAINTS, OR WHATEVER.

YOU...THEY.....OR WHO EVER WILL HAVE TO PROVE MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

FOR EXAMPLE.....

THE BANNER THAT HAS THE SLOGAN WHICH IS A SYNONYM FOR HUNG VICTORY......I WILL PRESENT IT. YOU WILL SEE THE CONNECTION......AND IF YOU DOUBT IT.....THEN ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT WRONG. I WILL HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH EVIDENCE FROM THE VERY HUNG MUN LODGE FOUNDED BY THE ONE NAMED CHING CHO.....ARTIFACTS OF THAT LODGE AS IN CERTIFICATES, FLAGS, AND SO FORTH.

WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFO FOUND IN REGARDS TO CHING CHO.....IT'S NOT MY PLACE ANYMORE TO PROVE IT. IT'S OUT THERE, AND IF YOU WANT TO DISPROVE IT, YOU WILL HAVE TO RESEARCH IT FIRST. WHICH I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T.

I DON'T TRUST CHAN FAMILY ARCHIVES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR WRITTEN BY THE THIRD GENERATION MASTER OF ANOTHER FAMILY. I WILL TURN TO MY FAMILY FIRST, THEN ASK YOUR FAMILY WHAT IT KNOWS. BUT NOT BEFORE I KNOW MY FIRST.

So because chan yiu chi is 3rd generation & wrote a CLF history based on old documents passed down to him, his version is wrong & you are ? generation & your version is based on old documents passed down is correct because.

[hskwarrior]

So because chan yiu chi is 3rd generation & wrote a CLF history based on old documents passed down to him

based on what old documents? EJ himself even said Chan Yiu Chi had to rely on oral transmissions?


his version is wrong & you are ?

he may be correct or not about his own family......but he wouldn't know anything about Jeung Hung Sing unless he was told. Chan Heung didn't have extensive records on Jeung Hung Sing.

So if jeung Hung Sing had students like Lee Yan, Lui Chun, and Yuen Hai, who, all have existing lineages till this day.....please tell me why we should believe another family over our own? I couldn't imagine Professor Lau Bun telling Yuen Hai he wanted to hear the Chan Family version of Yuen Hai's account of his own teacher.

[hskwarrior]

Chan Family archives didn't know when Jeung Hung Sing came to train with Chan Heung.

Chan Family archives don't contain when Jeung Hung Sing was born.

Chan Family archives don't contain what and how much Jeung Hung Sing learned.

Chan Family archives cannot explain why the only mention of Jeung Hung Sing according to Chan Heung is in 1867 while the Fut san Hung Sing kwoon founded by Jeung Hung Sing was founded in 1851.

Chan Family CLF once never contained information about the monk Ching Cho, but according to dFW around 2005 all of a sudden Choy Fook was Ching Cho....

now, according to our lineage.....

Jeung Hung Sing died in 1893 at 69 years old. how do we know? Chan Ngau Sing, Yuen Hai, and so on! Chan Family archives just couldn't provide that.

Jeung Hung Sing was married to a woman named Chan Kay. Chan family just didn't mention it.

Jeung Hung Sing had a insane amount of students under him going into the Tai Ping rebellion in 1851. But chan family archives don't mention this.....

I mean, there is sooooo much that the Chan family archives don't contain about Jeung Hung Sing whose life is worthy of movie making, i just can't conceive why i need to listen to the Chan Family archives when i know they're wrong in regards to Jeung Hung Sing?

[CLFNole]

You proved Ching Cho is Fung Dai Hung... and that proves what in regard to CLF history and who the founder was? There was a person in history known as Ching Cho and Fung Dai Hung is a well known name (fact or fiction), why then is there none of this from the Jeong Yim kung fu family or fut san?

[Mano Mano]

based on what old documents? EJ himself even said Chan Yiu Chi had to rely on oral transmissions?.

There would have some keun po & oral history the same for fut san.


he may be correct or not about his own family......but he wouldn't know anything about Jeung Hung Sing unless he was told. Chan Heung didn't have extensive records on Jeung Hung Sing.

So if jeung Hung Sing had students like Lee Yan, Lui Chun, and Yuen Hai, who, all have existing lineages till this day.....please tell me why we should believe another family over our own? I couldn't imagine Professor Lau Bun telling Yuen Hai he wanted to hear the Chan Family version of Yuen Hai's account of his own teacher.
please tell me why why would the chan family should believe another family over their own?
You do realist that you are coming over as an obsessive conspiracy theorist

[hskwarrior]

and that proves what in regard to CLF history

i'm not talking about CLF history. I'm talking about the history of the Fut san Hung Sing kwoon. And when everyone said ching cho was a myth, cause no documentation was available to study, we just didn't know it could be found in the Hung Mun.

Chan Heung's history is his own. Leave us to ours.

[iron_silk]

Chan Family archives didn't know when Jeung Hung Sing came to train with Chan Heung.

Chan Family archives don't contain when Jeung Hung Sing was born.

Chan Family archives don't contain what and how much Jeung Hung Sing learned.

Chan Family archives cannot explain why the only mention of Jeung Hung Sing according to Chan Heung is in 1867 while the Fut san Hung Sing kwoon founded by Jeung Hung Sing was founded in 1851.

Chan Family CLF once never contained information about the monk Ching Cho, but according to dFW around 2005 all of a sudden Choy Fook was Ching Cho....

now, according to our lineage.....

Jeung Hung Sing died in 1893 at 69 years old. how do we know? Chan Ngau Sing, Yuen Hai, and so on! Chan Family archives just couldn't provide that.

Jeung Hung Sing was married to a woman named Chan Kay. Chan family just didn't mention it.

Jeung Hung Sing had a insane amount of students under him going into the Tai Ping rebellion in 1851. But chan family archives don't mention this.....

I mean, there is sooooo much that the Chan family archives don't contain about Jeung Hung Sing whose life is worthy of movie making, i just can't conceive why i need to listen to the Chan Family archives when i know they're wrong in regards to Jeung Hung Sing?


Other than Chan Family record of when Jeung Yim learned from Chan Heung and when he went off to re-open the school - why would Chan Family have anything on Jeung Yim?

I think the only issue is Jeung Yim wanting to share credit from Chan Heung's CLF.

[extrajoseph]

Is there anything in the Jeung Ah-Yim archive that says he studied with Ching Cho? Came back to teach Chan Heung what? That he confounded CLF? The answers are all negative.

[hskwarrior]

There would have some keun po & oral history the same for fut san.

and there was and is.


ou do realist that you are coming over as an obsessive conspiracy theorist

yet you continue to skirt the question.

tell me why i need to believe the guy across the street when i can ask the people in my own house?

[hskwarrior]

Is there anything in the Jeung Ah-Yim archive that says he studied with Ching Cho? Came back to teach Chan Heung what? That he confounded CLF? The answers are all negative.

we can go in circle's on this one all day.

what happened? you tired of using your dragon 323 account?

[Mano Mano]

i'm not talking about CLF history. I'm talking about the history of the Fut san Hung Sing kwoon. And when everyone said ching cho was a myth, cause no documentation was available to study, we just didn't know it could be found in the Hung Mun.

Chan Heung's history is his own. Leave us to ours.

like it or not they’re intertwined with each other.

[extrajoseph]

tell me why i need to believe the guy across the street when i can ask the people in my own house?

The people in your house could tell you lies whereas the people across the street can see what is going on from the outside.:D

[hskwarrior]

The people in your house could tell you lies whereas the people across the street can see what is going on from the outside.

true very true....if i were you i'd go run back and ask them some more questions.

[extrajoseph]

The answer I get is that there are a few skeletons in your cupboard. :eek:

[hskwarrior]

The answer I get is that there are a few skeletons in your cupboard.

yeah don't we all.....and i do mean ALL!!! :D


cupboard.

well, i think its better than having a closet full!!!

[extrajoseph]

When your water closet is half full, it still gets a bit smelly!:D

[hskwarrior]

throw some pinesol in it!!!! make it smell perty!!!

[Sunyang]

Hello friends,
I've a question, wich are the differents about this manuscript http://www.chinachoyleefut.com/clf.php?cmd=4571dfd30e682
And Sifu Doc Fai Wong old manual?
http://www.plumblossom.net/PhotoAlbum/JiangMenScripts/ (From Jiangmen or King Mui)
They are all by Chan Heung or from is soon and grand soon? (Koon Pak and Yu Chi)

Peace!

SY

For XJoseph,
Hi XJ....some time ago I read one of your post in this forum were you spoke about the original Choy Lay Fut Manuscript that are in Hong kong??
I remember well?
and if yes, were are in Hong Kong?

Thank you!!

SY