PART III

CHAPTER 1

“THE GREEN GRASS MONK IS NOT A MISCONCEPTION”!

We all know that Ching Cho DID NOT EXIST in the CHAN family CLF history – ONLY in the Hung Sing CLF history. Because of this, the Chan family CLF branch have accused the Hung Sing clan of “distorting” the history of CLF by claiming that the monk Ching Cho (the “Green Grass Monk”) was Cheung Hung Sing’s teacher. The Chan clan historians said they have found no evidence in their “Chan Family Records” to verify Ching Cho’s existence. Therefore, they have dispelled Ching Cho as a “myth” and a “fictional” character and Doc Fei Wong has labeled it “The Green Grass Monk Misconception” in his 1985 storybook. That was 17 years ago.

LATEST CORRECTION TO A “MISCONCEPTION”

But now in 2002, Doc Fei Wong has suddenly changed his tune with a “NEW REVELATION” that condemns his own “misconception” of the monk Ching Cho by declaring (and admitting) that he has “discovered” that the monk did exist and claims he was actually Chan Heung’s teacher Choy Fook! In using “misconceptions” to discredit the Hung Sing Choy Lay Fut history and for dispelling the truth, some Chan clan historians have put their own Choy Lay Fut history in harm’s way and under scrutiny – all because they were so obsessed with their determination to discredit the history of the Hung Sing branch of Choy Lay Fut that they had to accuse the Hung Sing school of “fabricating” their CLF history using a “fictional character” by the name Ching Cho.

NOTE: CLF Nole had previously asked joseph this “If the Green Grass Monk was a fictional character as some people (of the Chan clan) believe, why is it NOW suddenly a “convenient time” to say that it was another name for Choy Fook?” Well said CLF Nole!

WHY THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF TUNE?

When people started to question about the existence of the Green Grass Monk (Ching Cho Wor Seung) on the Kung Fu Forum in early 2002, fu pow asked this question – “WHY PROMOTE A NON-EXISTING CHING CHO AND BRING UNNECESSARY DISHARMONY INTO THE FAMILY?”

Then WHY is Doc Fei Wong, the most ardent “anti-Ching Cho” activist, who devoted a whole chapter titled “The Green Grass Monk Misconception” (in his 1985 storybook) to dispel Ching Cho as a myth is NOW singing a different tune?! Is it because of what I had disclosed (in the April 2002 update on my website – the “Master Lacey Responds To The CLF Controversy”) in Chapter V under the headings – “The Buck Pai Mountain”, “The Monk Ching Cho”, “Misconception Is In The Mind Of The Ignorant”, “The 5 Founding Fathers of Southern Boxing” and “The Monk Ching Cho Is No Myth!”?

HYPOCRITICAL CONTRADICTIONS

Could it be that Doc Fei Wong has changed his tune because he now realizes he can no longer ignore the existence of Ching Cho now that his Chan clan’s CLF story is under scrutiny (thanks to anti-Hung Sing backstabbers like joseph, fu pow, Serpent and others) and in order to defend the honor of his martial arts lineage he must “resurrect” the condemned “Green Grass Monk” and make him part of their Chan family CLF history? Out of remorse for having “crucified” the Green Grass Monk (Ching Cho) and to make amends for his own “misconceptions” DFW has re-resurrected Ching Cho and helped restore lost faith in his followers. BUT didn’t one irate Chan clan supporter say – “WHY PROMOTE A NON-EXISTING CHING CHO AND BRING UNNECESSARY DISHARMONY INTO THE FAMILY?”! And didn’t this very same person “fu pow” hypocritically contradict himself by telling us that in HIS Choy Lay Fut lineage, CHING CHO DOES EXIST!? Why is fu pow always contradicting himself?!

Don’t you think it’s hypocritical of you CLF researchers to NOW suddenly admit that the monk Ching Cho did exist after having dispelled him as a “FICTIONAL” character for so many years?!

Was I wrong in saying that Ching Cho (Green Grass Monk) will haunt you backstabbers till the end of your days?

THE GREEN GRASS MONK HAUNTS THE “UNBELIEVERS”!

So why is DFW now suddenly bringing Ching Cho into the Chan family? Could it be that Choy Fook has appeared before him in a dream and told him – “Do not despair my Faithful One, for I am here to rid you of your misconceptions. Tell your followers and fellow Chan clan brothers that I, Choy Fook am the one known as Ching Cho! Go now my Chosen One and tell your people the good news – that Ching Cho is my “alias” name and to stop scorning the Ching Cho name. Tell these misguided souls of this New Revelation - that Choy Fook and Ching Cho is the same person and that I have chosen you to deliver them out of bondage from your misconceptions – in particularly, ‘THE GREEN GRASS MONK MISCONCEPTION’. For condemning me, I order you to do penance by saying a hundred times everyday – THE GREEN GRASS MONK IS NO MISCONCEPTION!”

*In his book, Doc Fei Wong made this statement – “With the absence of verifiable historical records, it is hard to consider the “Green Grass Monk” story as fact or even as a reasonable possibility”.

DFW talks about evidences and proofs in his book and he asked 8 questions at the end of his FAVORITE CHAPTER - “The Green Grass Monk Misconception”. I have already addressed these questions and issues in April’s “Master Lacey Responds To The CLF Controversy”. They are contained in Chapter V – “The Buck Pai Mountain”, “The Monk Ching Cho”, “The 5 Fathers of Southern Boxing” and in Chapter VI – “Hung Sing Disciples….”, “Why Was The Hung Sing Name Used…?”, “disciples of Cheung Yim Not Chan Heung” and Chapter VII – “Teacher/Student Relationship” and “The Monk Ching Cho Is No Myth!” READ AND ABSORB IT!

THE NAÏVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESENT GENERATION

By the way, Doc Fe Wong is mistaken to say that there was no “Chan Village” (the name used in the novel by a storyteller Nim Fut San Yen). In those days, everyone was aware that King Mui was the Chan family (those of the CHAN FAMILY NAME) native village so it was not uncommon for outsiders to refer the village as “Chan Chuen” (Chan village) when referring to King Mui village, the hometown of the Chan family descendants. “Chan Chuen” was just another common name for King Mui village that became popular with some people, especially travelers. No one was trying to change the village name so don’t make it sound like it’s another “misconception”! Why do people of this generation have to be so naïve!?