Previous | Next | Discuss :: Free Advice (General Feng Shui)

Dear Rose,

Normally, mathematics can be used as an analogy to your question:

1. Feng Shui is about `earth luck'. While Pillars of destiny is about `heaven's luck'.

2. Feng Shui and other Chinese divinity methods are all about trying to increase one's luck.

3. How then do we increase our `earth luck'.?

4. Quantum Leap in Feng Shui

For earth luck, the major idea is to either have a quantum leap in Feng Shui luck e.g. a home with good or excellent FS qualities.

A home with Quantum Leap in Feng Shui may bring in say e.g. 60 to 90 percent of all the luck there is for the home.

5. Without doing anything, for example, a person staying in such a home will automatically receive luck from their home. Yes, these homes are not that easy to find.

Here, the concept is about wealth accumulation. Such houses, can let users accumulate wealth automatically.

6. If you have the time visit the conference: Photo Tours of Interest (with Pictures) under this conference to read more about the following developments e.g. The Meyer Place or The Sterling Condominium.

You can utilise the search feature in this forum and type in a word e.g. " Meyer " etc... or log out of this forum and search for condominium development like " The Tropica " of the Hong Leong Group.

7. For example, these are homes or sites that do give a " Quantum Leap " in Feng Shui.

8. Many condominiums are in a Horse Shoe shaped as described under the development like " The Tropica ".

These homes are protected in a `horse shoe' shape e.g. with solid backing and clear space at the front.

9. If one also reverses the horse shoe, it looks like two hands clasped together to `receive wealth'.

10. The above are some of the examples of wealth collection. And depending on the development, `luck' may range from 50% to 90% depending on the location of the site.

11. The above is what I refer to as good Feng Shui. And not a myopic view of Feng Shui of just the interior of the home.

We should not just look at the interior of the home for that `elusive' wealth sector.

Imagine in a worst case senario; if all else outside the home falls apart; what is the use of looking for that elusive wealth sector within a home?

12. Feng Shui should be looked as a holistic method.

13. If a millionaire's sector is so easy to find, we then should question why there is NO such book available to the public.

The book could perhaps simply have only one page and pint-point the spot marked `X' as the wealth corner.

This is simply an illusion.

14. For the interior of the home, tools like Flying Star can help to check for any imbalances and `cure' or enhance that sector.

In mathematics, even if one get the `millionaire's corner' right, it only accounts for say a small portion of the `luck element' or your score could be 10 marks out of 100 total. One still fails the exam.

15. A more realistic approach is thus to SCORE as many marks as possible at all sectors of the home.

Any Feng Shui Master who claims to know where the Millionaire's corner will indeed be laughing loudly to the bank at the expense of his client.

The client would only be left with less money at the end.

16. It is also like the fortune teller down the street. Imagine! If the fortune teller who has the `cheek' to predict another person's fortune; should instead be rich him/herself as they should be able to predict their own fortune. But why? Are they doing there predicting for others.. Odd is'nt it. Again, if you look at it who has the last laugh.

We should try not to be too gullible in such issues. (This remark is not pointed at you) but rather.. we should try to look at the `deeper issues'.

Warmest Regards,
Cecil

On 8/26/2001 7:33:00 PM, Rose Ulch wrote:
>I read somewhere that you can
>active the Millionaire's
>corner to bring financial
>winnings into your home. What
>I would like to know is- How
>do you determine which is the
>millionaire's corner. Is it
>based on the flying star chart
>Current Prosperity(7) divided
>further by the BaGua chart
>Wealth(4) area?, or is it
>based on something totally
>different?