True North or Magnetic North
Renee
loving everything about it. However, we are coming across quite the big
disagreement. When using North, South, East and West directions one of us
likes to use magnetic North as the marker and the other likes to use true
North.
Can you please let us know which is the proper North to use for the
direction, as this can make quite a difference when figuring your property
out.
Thank you for help.
Renée
Matusan Robert - Boyler
True North is proper. There is not a word about magnetism in fengshui books
(at least none of masters quoted some so far), except in case of local
phenomena (unusual behavior of magnetic needle indicating presence of
spirits at this place, or bones, water, metal, etc. under surface of earth).
Fengshui is about directionology based on movement of sun. And sun is marker
of true cardinal directions, not of magnetic ones. Besides, magnetic
directions unceasingly changes, and suffers from local "anomalies", some of
which are mentioned above.
Some masters disapprove using true cardinal directions, but they do not
offer any convicting explanation, except that we are using luopans with
magnetic needle, so we "must" obey it, and their experience which is very
subjective.
Also it makes a very big difference if you are on northern or southern
hemisphere. I have not seen a luopan made for southern hemisphere (although
it could be used and the readings could be converted for southern
hemisphere), and whoever uses traditional luopan in southern hemisphere does
not understand basic (cosmology) on which the teaching of fengshui is built.
The same pertains on traditional editions of "Tongshu" and "Ten Thousand
Year Calendar" if applied on southern hemisphere.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler,
>True North is proper.
I'm very surprised, Boyler! Or am I misunderstanding this? Everyone I
know use the compass or the lou pan.
>Some masters disapprove using true cardinal directions, but they do not
>offer any convicting explanation, except that we are using luopans with
>magnetic needle, so we "must" obey it, and their experience which is very
>subjective.
Isn't the reason they use the lou pan because magnetic force are
'measured' to established the chart? Magnetic north changes due to
changes over time, and time is an important element i fengshui, isn't
it?
>Also it makes a very big difference if you are on northern or southern
>hemisphere. I have not seen a luopan made for southern hemisphere (although
>it could be used and the readings could be converted for southern
>hemisphere), and whoever uses traditional luopan in southern hemisphere does
>not understand basic (cosmology) on which the teaching of fengshui is built.
IMO there is no need for a southern fengshui. Otherwise you have to
change the earlier heaven chart too. Not only the later heaven. And,
the sky is up (qian - heaven - south) and earth is down (kun - earth -
north) in the southern hemisphere just as in the nothern. And east is
east, west is west there as here.
Please feel free to send me some case studies if you have.
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> I'm very surprised, Boyler! Or am I misunderstanding this?
You are surprised because you attached your mind for a certain idea. Open it
for other possibilities :o)
> Everyone I know use the compass or the lou pan.
Of course. Luopan is used, but correction for magnetic declination should be
used too. Unfortunately, this is something not taken in consideration by
many (if anyone). Ask anyone else who is using some kind of compass
professionally (pilots, sailors, mountaineers), they all use corrections for
magnetic declination, otherwise they would be lost, and this is not just
because of maps. Also, if one has no compass and is lost in the woods, one
will orient (interesting word, which in English indicates how someone orient
oneself - orient = east) oneself by position of the sun (if it's a clear
day), or by position of Pole Star (if it's a clear night). I could go on
with examples and reasons, but it would demand more serious and
comprehensive study which is unfortunately not possible to bring out at the
NG.
> Isn't the reason they use the lou pan because magnetic force are
> 'measured' to established the chart?
No. There is no 'measuring' of magnetic force in fengshui. As I said before
magnetism has it's function in fengshui only to determine local "anomalies".
Any odd behavior of magnetic needle indicates that a place is not suitable
for a house, that's all. Originally, compass is used because of it's "magic"
ability to point the south (not magnetic, but true south). That's all.
Although there is no written evidence that ancient Chinese knew about
magnetic declination, use of *solar* luopans by some masters in history of
fengshui indicates that, at least, some were aware of this. Blindly
believing that magnetic needle shows *true* direction could be compared with
believing that watch hands show *true* time. Watches/clocks in, say, two
cities (one is situated at some distance east or west from the other) inside
the same time zone show same time, although if compared with *true local
time* (as calculated by position of the sun) there could be a difference in
some 15 minutes. Similarly, magnetic compass shows south, but while at some
places on the earth it shows correct south, at some other places it could be
off as much as some 15 degrees.
> Magnetic north changes due to
> changes over time, and time is an important element i fengshui, isn't
> it?
True. Time is an important element in sanyuan fengshui, but it's not
measured by luopan, but by calendar. Luopan is used (by man) for determining
directional (earthly) influences, while calendar is used (by man) for time
(heavenly) influences. Therefore, changing of magnetic fields have nothing
to do with time as it is understood in fengshui. But calendars should also
be adapted for the southern hemisphere, but this is more complex then just a
mirroring :o)
> IMO there is no need for a southern fengshui.
Everyone has right on her/his own opinion :o)
> Otherwise you have to
> change the earlier heaven chart too. Not only the later heaven. And,
> the sky is up (qian - heaven - south) and earth is down (kun - earth -
> north) in the southern hemisphere just as in the nothern. And east is
> east, west is west there as here.
All charts should be *mirrored* for southern hemisphere, and so should be
luopans.
Qian is still heaven, and south (but south as indicated by position of the
sun at noon - that is, in case of southern hemisphere, in direction of
equator, or north pole), and kun is still earth, and north (but north as
indicated by direction opposite of that of sun at noon - that is, in case of
southern hemisphere, in direction opposite of equator, or in direction of
south pole).
(BTW their position (and meaning) in earlier heaven (as well as in later
heaven) arrangement have nothing to do with up and down directions.)
East and west are the same, as these are directions determined by rising and
the setting of the sun, respectively.
Everyone who is trying to study fengshui should keep in mind that Chinese
cosmology (and later the teachings like fengshui) evolved from simple
observation of nature and its phenomena as they appear *in northern
hemisphere*, where Chinese culture happened to appear. Therefore, for
correct application of fengshui in southern hemisphere we should observe the
nature and its phenomena as they appear *in southern hemisphere*. Whoever
neglects this does not poses true understanding of the art (although, at the
same time, could be very learned in other aspects of the art).
Basis of fengshui, without which there could not be true results, is
application of true directions (not magnetic ones), and awareness of need of
adaptation (mirroring) of the charts and luopan(s), and even way/directions
(yinyang) of flying of the stars, as well as adaptation of calendar, when
it's applied on southern hemisphere.
> Please feel free to send me some case studies if you have.
No case studies. And even if I offer you some, who could guarantee to you
they are not a fake. Case studies should take some serious, time consuming
and organized study, preferably carried out by several masters, and this is
not possible because of several reasons. Anyway, I think there is no need
for case studies (to prove this) if the theory of the art is understood
correctly.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
WBrownlee
I apologize for my ignorance of "lou pan"... I do not wish to jump in with
figures and numerical data, only to understand.
I wish, also, to know if feng shui might be used to correct the deficiencies
of my knees and body? I AM a geologist who cannot practice my calling
because of physical disabilities which were not caused by me. I would
GREATLY appreciate any information on how to rid myself of this
illness/situation. I am most unhappy, and I seem to not be able to find a
cure or a fix. Please, if anyone has something that might be of help, send
it to me! I am deeply unhappy because of the physical situation in which I
find myself. I think that there must be a better way.
Good wishes to you all...
Wanda
"Matusan Robert - Boyler" <robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:a0li7k$5o06$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
syho
why can't "masters" and their students give us solid arguments and definite
explanation of using magnetic north or using true north??
"masters" and their students, does your fengshui work???
syho
why can't "masters" and their students give us solid arguments and definite
explanation of using magnetic north or using true north??
"masters" and their students, does your fengshui work???
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> Yes, and geologists use it as well, to be sure of a correct reading.
It's good to know :o)
> I apologize for my ignorance of "lou pan"... I do not wish to jump in with
> figures and numerical data, only to understand.
>
> I wish, also, to know if feng shui might be used to correct the
deficiencies
> of my knees and body? I AM a geologist who cannot practice my calling
> because of physical disabilities which were not caused by me. I would
> GREATLY appreciate any information on how to rid myself of this
> illness/situation.
Traditionally, fengshui is used for enhancing health and wealth. So you can
use fengshui for healing. Depending on your condition you can completely
recover, or just get much better.
There are two ways to find how to use fengshui for health:
1. you can find some fengshui master and/or practitioner who will tell you
what to do (not recommended if you don't know anything or very little about
fengshui, because there is too much fake masters and/or practitioners with
dubious level of "knowledge", and it could be very expensive)
2. buy a book(s) about fengshui by Eva Wong or David Twicken, learn basics
of fengshui and apply what you learned on your home. When you work out
flying star chart look for the room with mountain star 8-white (but, of
course, all depends on overall situation of your home). It would work
slowly, but it would work (recommended, you will learn something about
traditional fengshui, it's relatively cheep). You can also subscribe to some
of mailing lists where you can ask (and sometimes even receive some answers)
if you don't understand something in process of learning.
> I am most unhappy, and I seem to not be able to find a
> cure or a fix. Please, if anyone has something that might be of help, send
> it to me! I am deeply unhappy because of the physical situation in which I
> find myself. I think that there must be a better way.
There is a story in "Huainanzi" about "a farmer in Northern China, near the
Mongolian border," who "discovered one day that his horse had disappeared.
He knew not whether it had been lost or stolen and was put to great
inconvenience, for he needed the horse for his work. His neighbors come to
console him and grieved at the calamity that befallen him. But the farmer
would have none of it, pointing out that what had happened was not
necessarily so bad, and so it did not warrant grief."
"A few days later, the horse returned, accompanied by a magnificent
Mongolian stallion that had strayed from its herd and followed along. This
not only relieved the farmer's inconvenience but also greatly increased his
wealth, for the horse was truly a prize. His friendly neighbors came
rejoicing in his good fortune and envied him for the fine animal he had
gotten through a stroke of luck. But the farmer did not rejoice with them,
pointing out that what had happened was not necessarily so good."
"Not long after that, the farmer's son was riding the Mongolian horse
and found himself unable to control it, for his experience as a horsemen was
limited to riding the more docile plough horse. The frisky stallion threw
him off, and his thigh was badly injured, leaving him lame. Although the
farmer was again inconvenienced by this occurrence, he again refused to
regard it as a misfortune, and did not grieve."
"The next year the barbarian armies of the Mongolian chiefs swept into
China, and every able-bodied young man was conscripted into the army to
help defend the empire. The combat was heavy, and the mortality rate in the
army was very high in many savage battles. But farmer's son did not lose his
life, for he was exempt from military service on account of his lame leg."
(taken from "The Tao of Health and Longevity", by Da Liu, pp. 177-178)
So it seems that all things happen with some reasons. Although you are now
unhappy and can not do many things you want to, on the other hand there is
so many things you *can* do. Please do not waste your time just being
unhappy and doing nothing. You have time, you have computer, you can learn
whatever you want to, and even make some new friends with similar interests
(some of them could maybe live close to you and even could pay you a visit).
Turn your disadvantage in your advantage, and be happy.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> why can't "masters" and their students give us solid arguments and
definite
> explanation of using magnetic north or using true north??
I really don't know.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
syho
I see! fengshui theories and hypotheses only relate to stories and tales.
and fengshui was based on stories and tales.
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler,
>You are surprised because you attached your mind for a certain idea. Open it
>for other possibilities :o)
The same may go for you. :-))
>> Isn't the reason they use the lou pan because magnetic force are
>> 'measured' to established the chart?
>
>No. There is no 'measuring' of magnetic force in fengshui. As I said before
>magnetism has it's function in fengshui only to determine local "anomalies".
>Any odd behavior of magnetic needle indicates that a place is not suitable
>for a house, that's all. Originally, compass is used because of it's "magic"
>ability to point the south (not magnetic, but true south). That's all.
>Although there is no written evidence that ancient Chinese knew about
>magnetic declination, use of *solar* luopans by some masters in history of
>fengshui indicates that, at least, some were aware of this.
But we don't know that and the sensible conclusion is that they used
magnetic north even if aware of true north. Wouldn't it be a very
important point to stress in the classical textbooks on fengshui? Do
you know of any such information in one of those books?
In your last post you said they, the masters, felt they had to 'obey'
the luo pan. Do you suggest the masters after using calculated reason
suddenly turn around to become superstitious worshippers of the luo
pan?
What is your sources for saying the compass was only used for
detecting anomalies? I know they can have that function, but _only_
that?
>believing that magnetic needle shows *true* direction could be compared with
>believing that watch hands show *true* time.
Just because there is a so called 'true north' doesn't mean magnetic
north is 'untrue'. Actually, it's there in the real world.
>Watches/clocks in, say, two
>cities (one is situated at some distance east or west from the other) inside
>the same time zone show same time, although if compared with *true local
>time* (as calculated by position of the sun) there could be a difference in
>some 15 minutes. Similarly, magnetic compass shows south, but while at some
>places on the earth it shows correct south, at some other places it could be
>off as much as some 15 degrees.
Of course time is different in each place because time is countinuos.
The time zones are there for a practical reason. It is an artificial
convenience. You cannot compare that with magnetic north. Magnetic
north hasn't been agreed upon by scientists for practical reasons.
It's not 'constructed'.
>> Magnetic north changes due to
>> changes over time, and time is an important element i fengshui, isn't
>> it?
>
>True. Time is an important element in sanyuan fengshui, but it's not
>measured by luopan, but by calendar. Luopan is used (by man) for determining
>directional (earthly) influences, while calendar is used (by man) for time
>(heavenly) influences. Therefore, changing of magnetic fields have nothing
>to do with time as it is understood in fengshui. But calendars should also
>be adapted for the southern hemisphere, but this is more complex then just a
>mirroring :o)
I may think that magnetic north changes due to time because measuring
time is only possible by refering it to bodies movement in space, or
vibrating bodies. And bodies, the planets, have magnetic fields, don't
they? Why this has nothing to do with time "as it is understood in
fengshui", I don't know. Yes, calendar questions are indeed complex.
Too complex for me I'm afraid.
>Everyone has right on her/his own opinion :o)
Certainly :-))
>All charts should be *mirrored* for southern hemisphere, and so should be
>luopans.
And the proof is? I would like to see att least one case study of
this.
>(BTW their position (and meaning) in earlier heaven (as well as in later
>heaven) arrangement have nothing to do with up and down directions.)
Why? Isn't heaven up and earth down? Qian-Kun is the vertical axis and
Li-Kan the horisontal. Symbolically heaven is the higher and Kun the
lower.
>Everyone who is trying to study fengshui should keep in mind that Chinese
>cosmology (and later the teachings like fengshui) evolved from simple
>observation of nature and its phenomena as they appear *in northern
>hemisphere*, where Chinese culture happened to appear. Therefore, for
>correct application of fengshui in southern hemisphere we should observe the
>nature and its phenomena as they appear *in southern hemisphere*. Whoever
>neglects this does not poses true understanding of the art (although, at the
>same time, could be very learned in other aspects of the art).
Well, I'm one of the ignorant then. But who is to say how fengshui
really emerged and the true depth of the ancients understanding? If
they were aware of 'true north', as you suggest, isn't it possible
they also had knowledge of the implications for fengshui in the
southern hemisphere? I believe thar fengshui evolved as a universal
tool, and that it just as well is to be used everywhere without any
changes. It is failing of understanding that opens up for this
'southern fengshui' fantasies.
>Basis of fengshui, without which there could not be true results, is
>application of true directions (not magnetic ones), and awareness of need of
>adaptation (mirroring) of the charts and luopan(s), and even way/directions
>(yinyang) of flying of the stars, as well as adaptation of calendar, when
>it's applied on southern hemisphere.
I disagree. Did the old masters use true north then since "without it
there can be no true results"? How come magnetic north is used today
and qualified people get 'true results" with it. One cannot mold the
basis to fit the whim of the situation. It's like putting everything
upside down.
>No case studies. And even if I offer you some, who could guarantee to you
>they are not a fake.
Haha! I trust your sincerity. My only request is that they come from
your own experience. Then you will know they ain't fakes.
>Case studies should take some serious, time consuming
>and organized study, preferably carried out by several masters, and this is
>not possible because of several reasons. Anyway, I think there is no need
>for case studies (to prove this) if the theory of the art is understood
>correctly.
I beg your pardon. Case studies are alpha and omega in studying
fengshui. If one understands basic principles and applications it's
easy to see what is and what isn't. Even when the detailed
circumstances and some specialities are beyond our grasp.
We can't rely on masters, because most of them just don't care if
"we", the struggling outsiders, don't get it. And I understand them.
Too many studying fengshui just decides what to believe and stick with
it, satisfied to be a 'disciple' to 'The Master'. They lack the will
to draw reasonable conclusions from real life examples because they
don't know where to start and what to look for. It so convinient to
have a theory and be forever content to 'understand the theory'.
But as we prove here, theory, or what we define as theory, can be open
for argumentation.
Happy New Year to you and everyone.
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> I see! fengshui theories and hypotheses only relate to stories and tales.
> and fengshui was based on stories and tales.
The story had nothing to do with fengshui.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> The same may go for you. :-))
The difference is that I was not surprised with your response, and that I
promote northern *and* southern hemisphere teaching, not just northern like
you :o)
> But we don't know that and the sensible conclusion is that they used
> magnetic north even if aware of true north.
Why makes you think so?
> Wouldn't it be a very
> important point to stress in the classical textbooks on fengshui?
Maybe, but if they didn't knew anything about magnetic declination (and
there is no firm evidence that they knew anything about it), they would not
have anything to stress.
> Do
> you know of any such information in one of those books?
I found something about ancient perception of use of the compass, and it's
definitely related to sun. I didn't found it in a fengshui book (one of
reason is that I don't know Chinese, and none of masters or "masters" didn't
find it convenient to translate any of fengshui classic - when I study
Chinese philosophy there is a lot of translations of ancient philosophical
books/classics, as they are necessary for study and understanding of a
philosophical thought - why fengshui masters didn't translate any of
fengshui classics, I can only guess), but in a legalist classic.
> In your last post you said they, the masters, felt they had to 'obey'
> the luo pan. Do you suggest the masters after using calculated reason
> suddenly turn around to become superstitious worshippers of the luo
> pan?
Yes, some of them (the great majority) definitely.
> What is your sources for saying the compass was only used for
> detecting anomalies? I know they can have that function, but _only_
> that?
The "only" is deduced from my studying of ancient Chinese cosmology :o)
> Just because there is a so called 'true north' doesn't mean magnetic
> north is 'untrue'. Actually, it's there in the real world.
I didn't say it's untrue, just that everything (according to teachings of
Chinese cosmology) points at true north, not at the magnetic one.
> Of course time is different in each place because time is countinuos.
> The time zones are there for a practical reason. It is an artificial
> convenience. You cannot compare that with magnetic north. Magnetic
> north hasn't been agreed upon by scientists for practical reasons.
> It's not 'constructed'.
I am afraid you missed the point in my comparison, but never mind.
> And the proof is?
The basic principles of Chinese cosmology/cosmogony.
> I would like to see att least one case study of
> this.
You can make one yourself, as well (and you'll be sure none cheated you).
> Why? Isn't heaven up and earth down?
Yes.
> Qian-Kun is the vertical axis and
> Li-Kan the horisontal.
Only if you are looking at it as on two-dimensional diagram on the paper.
> Symbolically heaven is the higher and Kun the
> lower.
Xiantian bagua is spatial diagram. Each gua represents one of eight
directions seen from the middle (zhong/Ren). Heaven above, in the context,
is not represented by Qian but is real Heaven (Tian), and Earth below is not
represented by Kun, but is real earth (Di). In the Xiantian bagua Qian
represents south, and Kun north, not up and down, although we could stretch
them to represent these two directions too, but then we'll be at odds with
other guas :o)
> Well, I'm one of the ignorant then. But who is to say how fengshui
> really emerged and the true depth of the ancients understanding?
Anyone who studied Chinese culture, history, cosmology and philosophy.
> If
> they were aware of 'true north', as you suggest, isn't it possible
> they also had knowledge of the implications for fengshui in the
> southern hemisphere?
They were aware *only* of true north, but they didn't know the earth is
globe, so they didn't know about southern hemisphere, although there is some
possibility that they knew about southern hemisphere, pointed out in
"Huainanzi", and if this is true, then this is also an early proof that
southern hemisphere demands different treatment.
> I believe thar fengshui evolved as a universal
> tool, and that it just as well is to be used everywhere without any
> changes. It is failing of understanding that opens up for this
> 'southern fengshui' fantasies.
You have right to believe whatever you want. Some even think teaching about
fengshui brought extraterrestrials. When it comes to someone's personal
beliefs and/or convictions, my discussion stops :o) One cannot argue with
someone who firmly believes in something. There is Chinese saying: "People
who follow different ways never have anything helpful to say to one
another."
> I disagree. Did the old masters use true north then since "without it
> there can be no true results"? How come magnetic north is used today
> and qualified people get 'true results" with it. One cannot mold the
> basis to fit the whim of the situation. It's like putting everything
> upside down.
Sorry if I offend you.
> Haha! I trust your sincerity. My only request is that they come from
> your own experience. Then you will know they ain't fakes.
See above (about your own case studies).
> I beg your pardon. Case studies are alpha and omega in studying
> fengshui. If one understands basic principles and applications it's
> easy to see what is and what isn't. Even when the detailed
> circumstances and some specialities are beyond our grasp.
If theory is sound, practice does not fail. There are many examples which
you can find yourself.
> We can't rely on masters, because most of them just don't care if
> "we", the struggling outsiders, don't get it. And I understand them.
> Too many studying fengshui just decides what to believe and stick with
> it, satisfied to be a 'disciple' to 'The Master'. They lack the will
> to draw reasonable conclusions from real life examples because they
> don't know where to start and what to look for. It so convinient to
> have a theory and be forever content to 'understand the theory'.
Then they are not true masters. True master should care.
> But as we prove here, theory, or what we define as theory, can be open
> for argumentation.
For argumentation about a theory we need both to be familiar with certain
basic principles, and some of them are contained in "Huainanzi". Have you
read it?
> Happy New Year to you and everyone.
I do not celebrate it, but thank you anyway, and I wish the same to you too.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
syho
oh, poor syhokiller, would you please don't mislead other people by your 28
xiu (constellation, lunar-mansion) theory!
should we use horizontal circumference, equatorial circumference or ecliptic
circumference for yijing or taixuanjing??
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> oh, poor syhokiller, would you please don't mislead other people by your
28
> xiu (constellation, lunar-mansion) theory!
>
> should we use horizontal circumference, equatorial circumference or
ecliptic
> circumference for yijing or taixuanjing??
I have told what I know. If I am wrong about it, and you know what is wrong,
could you please point it out. I would like to learn what is correct, and I
would gladly withdraw what I've told, because I don't want to mislead other
people. If I have done it unintentionally, I sincerely apologize.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
syho
you have recommended many fengshui books, why can't you find the correct
answer from these books?
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> you have recommended many fengshui books, why can't you find the correct
> answer from these books?
The short "discussion" about 28 constellations (xiu) that took place at
chineseastrology mailing list had nothing to do with fengshui, but with
"Taixuanjing", where the 28 xiu are arranged over 81 shou, starting with
0 degrees of Drawn Ox at December 22. (winter solstice) some 2000 years ago.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
syho
come on, there is a circle on the luopan marked with 28 xiu, it is the
evidence to prove that fengshui masters use 28 xiu. how come you know
nothing about it even if you have recommended so many "good" fengshui books?
should we use horizontal circumference, equatorial circumference or ecliptic
circumference for yijing or taixuanjing or fengshui??
which school of fengshui is authentic??
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> come on, there is a circle on the luopan marked with 28 xiu, it is the
> evidence to prove that fengshui masters use 28 xiu.
True.
> how come you know
> nothing about it even if you have recommended so many "good" fengshui
books?
Well, there is not much about it in the books, and as you can see from the
subject, I am still at first circle (heaven pool) :o)
> should we use horizontal circumference, equatorial circumference or
ecliptic
> circumference for yijing or taixuanjing or fengshui??
I think we should use equatorial circumference - the red path (chidao).
> which school of fengshui is authentic??
Sanhe, sanyuan?
--
Wansui!
Boyler
syho
subscribers, "masters" and their students even don't know the use of the 28
xiu circle on the luopan which related to astronomy and/or astrology, how
can they know their school of fengshui is authentic???
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler,
>The difference is that I was not surprised with your response, and that I
>promote northern *and* southern hemisphere teaching, not just northern like
>you :o)
I see.
>> But we don't know that and the sensible conclusion is that they used
>> magnetic north even if aware of true north.
>
>Why makes you think so?
Because they 'obeyed' the compass as you say.
>> Wouldn't it be a very
>> important point to stress in the classical textbooks on fengshui?
>
>Maybe, but if they didn't knew anything about magnetic declination (and
>there is no firm evidence that they knew anything about it), they would not
>have anything to stress.
So they used MN.
>I found something about ancient perception of use of the compass, and it's
>definitely related to sun. I didn't found it in a fengshui book (one of
>reason is that I don't know Chinese, and none of masters or "masters" didn't
>find it convenient to translate any of fengshui classic - when I study
>Chinese philosophy there is a lot of translations of ancient philosophical
>books/classics, as they are necessary for study and understanding of a
>philosophical thought - why fengshui masters didn't translate any of
>fengshui classics, I can only guess), but in a legalist classic.
>
>> In your last post you said they, the masters, felt they had to 'obey'
>> the luo pan. Do you suggest the masters after using calculated reason
>> suddenly turn around to become superstitious worshippers of the luo
>> pan?
>
>Yes, some of them (the great majority) definitely.
Ok, so now they are reduced to superstitious people unable to make
conclusions based on observation and practise. That's a typical modern
view of the ancients: they where just superstious, couldn't think
clearly and obviously lacked the sophistication of our times. I don't
think that. I believe they had ears, eyes and brains. The lack of
consideration for utility, as we find so perplexing, is just a
reflection of another way of looking at the world than our present
one.
Historically science has consisted of a qualitative and qauntitative
part. Astronomy was once another side of astrology and mathemathics
was not only a quantitative exercise but numbers had a symbollical
meaning too, numerology; likewise alchemy and chemistry was two
aspects of the same science.
An example of this is the astronomer Sima Qian who says: "The Dipper
is the Imperial chariot; it rotates in the center, and looks down on
and regulates the four regions." And as C.Cullen observes: "No-one
could argue that Sima Qian was unaware of the plain fact the the
celestial pole does not lie within the Dipper" (C.Cullen: Astronomy
and mathematics in ancient China). Now, Sima Qian is clearly talking
from a qualitative viewpoint. He is not concerned with the
quantitative measurements within the context of his discourse.
As a traditional science fengshui has a quantitative aspect, that is
geography as we know it today. And true north concerns geography.
Fengshui is the qualitative part, and it is about magnetic north. So
when it comes to the qualitative measurment of a location the magnetic
north is to be used. That is probably why the ancient masters 'obeyed'
the compass, because they saw in it the presence of a powerfull
quality. It was nothing superstitious att all. Just logic in line with
the worldview of the time.
Since fengshui seems to be mostly the practise of qualitative
measurements geography must have been taken care of more or less when
the practical need for it came forth. As, in the use of the compass in
navigation for example. That is why you have read about its relation
to the sun in that old text, 'cause its a quantitative viewpoint. The
reason it's missing in fengshui texts is because this sun - compass
relation doesn't concern the practise and aim of fengshui, which is
the qualitative measurment of a location.
Actually the compass needle doesn't point to magnetic north but to the
point on the horizon of the magnetic field of the location. For
convenience we say magnetic north, but this point stress the truly
local aspect of fengshui and why we use magnetic north. In principle
it is not so much about direction as the nature of the force of the
magnetic field of the location.
>> What is your sources for saying the compass was only used for
>> detecting anomalies? I know they can have that function, but _only_
>> that?
>
>The "only" is deduced from my studying of ancient Chinese cosmology :o)
So, it's only to take your word for it, becaue you have deduced so.
Maybe you are right but it's not easy to know since you don't give
much more than a statement. Just because the Chinese was bad at
exploring the compass for practical purposes doesn't mean they didn't
use it as an indicator of direction and indirectly the magnetic field
of a location.
>I didn't say it's untrue, just that everything (according to teachings of
>Chinese cosmology) points at true north, not at the magnetic one.
They was taking the geographical quantitative view. In that sense
everything points to true north.
>> Of course time is different in each place because time is countinuos.
>> The time zones are there for a practical reason. It is an artificial
>> convenience. You cannot compare that with magnetic north. Magnetic
>> north hasn't been agreed upon by scientists for practical reasons.
>> It's not 'constructed'.
>
>I am afraid you missed the point in my comparison, but never mind.
Please, if you will, state your point again so that even I can get it.
>> I would like to see att least one case study of
>> this.
>
>You can make one yourself, as well (and you'll be sure none cheated you).
Prove what? That fengshui works? Whenever a new idea comes up the
burden of proof is on those who propose it. Nice try to turn the table
:-). BTW, when Sima Qian quoted above saying the Dipper regulates the
four region, isn't that a clear indication that fengshui is universal,
and that southern fengshui is out of the question? Yes, indeed their
earth was flat but it's flat only in their qualitative universe. A
good guess would be that they new perfectly well about the roundness
of earth and the planets, just like the old Greeks did and informed
people has throughout history.
>Xiantian bagua is spatial diagram. Each gua represents one of eight
>directions seen from the middle (zhong/Ren). Heaven above, in the context,
>is not represented by Qian but is real Heaven (Tian), and Earth below is not
>represented by Kun, but is real earth (Di). In the Xiantian bagua Qian
>represents south, and Kun north, not up and down, although we could stretch
>them to represent these two directions too, but then we'll be at odds with
>other guas :o)
I agree with you, but in a symbolical context the simple 'up - down'
analogy works just fine.
>> Well, I'm one of the ignorant then. But who is to say how fengshui
>> really emerged and the true depth of the ancients understanding?
>
>Anyone who studied Chinese culture, history, cosmology and philosophy.
I'm happy you've penetrated these depths. But you still can't
satisfactorly explain, IMO, why southern fengshui is viable.
>> If
>> they were aware of 'true north', as you suggest, isn't it possible
>> they also had knowledge of the implications for fengshui in the
>> southern hemisphere?
>
>They were aware *only* of true north, but they didn't know the earth is
>globe, so they didn't know about southern hemisphere, although there is some
>possibility that they knew about southern hemisphere, pointed out in
>"Huainanzi", and if this is true, then this is also an early proof that
>southern hemisphere demands different treatment.
Please explain why it it so due to its pointing out in "Huau Nan Zi".
>> I believe thar fengshui evolved as a universal
>> tool, and that it just as well is to be used everywhere without any
>> changes. It is failing of understanding that opens up for this
>> 'southern fengshui' fantasies.
>
>You have right to believe whatever you want. Some even think teaching about
>fengshui brought extraterrestrials. When it comes to someone's personal
>beliefs and/or convictions, my discussion stops :o) One cannot argue with
>someone who firmly believes in something. There is Chinese saying: "People
>who follow different ways never have anything helpful to say to one
>another."
Your point is just as much an opinion as mine. Actually you have much
less 'proof' about southern fengshui than I have about mine in
opposition to that view. Having read a lot of books doesn't make you
point of view into a proof or you into an expert. It is still only an
opinion more or less grounded.
And if your conception about 'helpfull' is the same as supporting your
arguments, count me out. I'm discussing the subject, and if you can't
discharge with your personal feelings, I'm sorry.
>> I disagree. Did the old masters use true north then since "without it
>> there can be no true results"? How come magnetic north is used today
>> and qualified people get 'true results" with it. One cannot mold the
>> basis to fit the whim of the situation. It's like putting everything
>> upside down.
>
>Sorry if I offend you.
No, you did not 'offend' me. Keep to the subject.
>> Haha! I trust your sincerity. My only request is that they come from
>> your own experience. Then you will know they ain't fakes.
>
>See above (about your own case studies).
Turning the table won't work.
>> I beg your pardon. Case studies are alpha and omega in studying
>> fengshui. If one understands basic principles and applications it's
>> easy to see what is and what isn't. Even when the detailed
>> circumstances and some specialities are beyond our grasp.
>
>If theory is sound, practice does not fail. There are many examples which
>you can find yourself.
So now there suddenly are 'many examples'. The same who earlier was
liable to fake. Unless 'examples' mean something other than 'cases'
that is.
>> We can't rely on masters, because most of them just don't care if
>> "we", the struggling outsiders, don't get it. And I understand them.
>> Too many studying fengshui just decides what to believe and stick with
>> it, satisfied to be a 'disciple' to 'The Master'. They lack the will
>> to draw reasonable conclusions from real life examples because they
>> don't know where to start and what to look for. It so convinient to
>> have a theory and be forever content to 'understand the theory'.
>
>Then they are not true masters. True master should care.
Their only obligation are to themselves and to their own integrity.
They are not "gods". BTW isn't this 'Master' thing rather old
fashioned?
>> But as we prove here, theory, or what we define as theory, can be open
>> for argumentation.
>
>For argumentation about a theory we need both to be familiar with certain
>basic principles, and some of them are contained in "Huainanzi". Have you
>read it?
No, I havn't read that book which you try to bang my head with.
Enlighten me, what did it learn you about fengshui in particular?
Put forward the cases that shows some trace of legitimacy of your
claim and maybe I also will be convinced, as you are. But I see to
results in the real world. The proof is in the pudding.
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> Because they 'obeyed' the compass as you say.
This does not mean that the two norths didn't coincided at "that time" and
at
"that place".
> So they used MN.
And maybe at the same time TN :o)
> Ok, so now they are reduced to superstitious people unable to make
> conclusions based on observation and practise. That's a typical modern
> view of the ancients: they where just superstious, couldn't think
> clearly and obviously lacked the sophistication of our times. I don't
> think that. I believe they had ears, eyes and brains. The lack of
> consideration for utility, as we find so perplexing, is just a
> reflection of another way of looking at the world than our present
> one.
You should get acquainted with Chinese history too. There were, in ancient
time, some original thinkers (some of them anonymous). Later, their
teachings were blindly followed, and their works copied and recopied. Same
goes with fengshui masters who blindly followed teachings of famous fengshui
masters. Also, kind of superstition could be noticed in prayer pronounced
each time before luopan is used. Another blind point is neglecting that all
the culture of which the fengshu is just a tiny part originated in northern
hemisphere, and that early Chinese cosmology is based on observation of
heaven and earth just from the point of the Middle Kingdom. There is no need
to explain it to anyone who knows something about early Chinese cosmology.
It's self evident.
> Historically science has consisted of a qualitative and qauntitative
> part. Astronomy was once another side of astrology and mathemathics
> was not only a quantitative exercise but numbers had a symbollical
> meaning too, numerology; likewise alchemy and chemistry was two
> aspects of the same science.
>
> An example of this is the astronomer Sima Qian who says: "The Dipper
> is the Imperial chariot; it rotates in the center, and looks down on
> and regulates the four regions." And as C.Cullen observes: "No-one
> could argue that Sima Qian was unaware of the plain fact the the
> celestial pole does not lie within the Dipper" (C.Cullen: Astronomy
> and mathematics in ancient China). Now, Sima Qian is clearly talking
> from a qualitative viewpoint. He is not concerned with the
> quantitative measurements within the context of his discourse.
>
> As a traditional science fengshui has a quantitative aspect, that is
> geography as we know it today. And true north concerns geography.
> Fengshui is the qualitative part, and it is about magnetic north. So
> when it comes to the qualitative measurment of a location the magnetic
> north is to be used.
Wait a minute. Although I do not quite understand your use and
interpretation of qualitative and quantitative, it seems to me (maybe I am
wrong) that there is something wrong in your exposition above. You said Sima
Qian saying is from a qualitative viewpoint. But Big Dipper pointing to four
geographic directions (regions), not magnetic ones. Later you said the
fengshui is the qualitative part (same as Sima Qian's), but this time it's
about magnetic north. Could you explain?
> That is probably why the ancient masters 'obeyed'
> the compass, because they saw in it the presence of a powerfull
> quality. It was nothing superstitious att all. Just logic in line with
> the worldview of the time.
Could you support above with some quote from any fengshui book or some other
authentic source?
> Since fengshui seems to be mostly the practise of qualitative
> measurements geography must have been taken care of more or less when
> the practical need for it came forth. As, in the use of the compass in
> navigation for example. That is why you have read about its relation
> to the sun in that old text, 'cause its a quantitative viewpoint. The
> reason it's missing in fengshui texts is because this sun - compass
> relation doesn't concern the practise and aim of fengshui, which is
> the qualitative measurment of a location.
How do you explain use of solar luopan by some masters.
> Actually the compass needle doesn't point to magnetic north but to the
> point on the horizon of the magnetic field of the location. For
> convenience we say magnetic north, but this point stress the truly
> local aspect of fengshui and why we use magnetic north. In principle
> it is not so much about direction as the nature of the force of the
> magnetic field of the location.
Have you read Stephen Skinner's "The Living Earth Manual of Feng-Shui /
Chinese Geomancy"?
> So, it's only to take your word for it, becaue you have deduced so.
> Maybe you are right but it's not easy to know since you don't give
> much more than a statement.
So it's time to learn some basics of Chinese cosmology, because
(unfortunately) I don't have time to rewrite here pages and pages from the
books.
> Just because the Chinese was bad at
> exploring the compass for practical purposes doesn't mean they didn't
> use it as an indicator of direction and indirectly the magnetic field
> of a location.
You can read something about it in above mentioned Stephen Skinner's book.
> They was taking the geographical quantitative view. In that sense
> everything points to true north.
> Please, if you will, state your point again so that even I can get it.
My point was that we cannot blindly believe that an instrument
(watch/compass) shows true value (of time/direction) just because we have
it, and use it. In case of compass, even if we agree on magnetic north, its
readings could be wrong.
> Prove what? That fengshui works? Whenever a new idea comes up the
> burden of proof is on those who propose it. Nice try to turn the table
> :-).
I am aware of the burden (and of my incompetence), but as fengshui is
metaphysics, hardly that anything about it could be proved, except maybe
some theory/teaching (in respect to early Chinese cosmology).
> BTW, when Sima Qian quoted above saying the Dipper regulates the
> four region, isn't that a clear indication that fengshui is universal,
> and that southern fengshui is out of the question?
Not at all. Big Dipper cannot be seen from southern hemisphere, therefore a
culture living at southern hemisphere cannot rely on it for
determining/regulating the four regions or even seasons. Even if it could be
done, at least seasons would be totally wrongly indicated (that is when it
points east on northern hemisphere would be spring but on northern it would
be autumn) and this we could not call universal, could we?
> Yes, indeed their
> earth was flat but it's flat only in their qualitative universe. A
> good guess would be that they new perfectly well about the roundness
> of earth and the planets, just like the old Greeks did and informed
> people has throughout history.
Unfortunately, as far I know there is no indication whatsoever in early
Chinese literature that they knew about roundness of the earth. Please read
"Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought" by John S. Major. I can see you are
really interested, and if it is true, you won't regret it.
> I agree with you, but in a symbolical context the simple 'up - down'
> analogy works just fine.
> I'm happy you've penetrated these depths. But you still can't
> satisfactorly explain, IMO, why southern fengshui is viable.
Complete explanation would have to wait till I write an article about it,
when I get some more spare time (and there are still some works I have to
study first).
> Please explain why it it so due to its pointing out in "Huau Nan Zi".
Because it's an early work where is explained much of terminology we use in
fengshui now. It's *must* for every serious fengshui student.
> Your point is just as much an opinion as mine. Actually you have much
> less 'proof' about southern fengshui than I have about mine in
> opposition to that view. Having read a lot of books doesn't make you
> point of view into a proof or you into an expert. It is still only an
> opinion more or less grounded.
True. But it's not the time nor place to bring out any proofs. If all goes
well there will be an article about it (hopefully with help from some more
knowledgeable person that I am). Southern hemisphere fengshui cannot be
proved in a sentence or in a mail. It should be systematic and easy to
follow exposition, a theory if you want. And potential readers should decide
for themselves which way to follow. None could be forced into it.
> And if your conception about 'helpfull' is the same as supporting your
> arguments, count me out. I'm discussing the subject, and if you can't
> discharge with your personal feelings, I'm sorry.
Don't worry. You are very helpful. And I tend not to involve emotively in
what I do. "Take not gain and loss to heart" ("Yijing" 35.5). But I always
gladly enter such a discussion with people who strongly oppose it, because
in this way I find out a thing or two about which I have to pay my attention
when I am writing the article. Stronger the arguments, stronger is the
challenge, and more I have to study.
> Turning the table won't work.
Well, I tried :o)
> So now there suddenly are 'many examples'. The same who earlier was
> liable to fake. Unless 'examples' mean something other than 'cases'
> that is.
You're right, they mean something other than 'cases'. There are some
"recent" theoretic discoveries, proved much later to be true, or yet to be
proved.
> Their only obligation are to themselves and to their own integrity.
> They are not "gods". BTW isn't this 'Master' thing rather old
> fashioned?
Agreed.
> No, I havn't read that book which you try to bang my head with.
> Enlighten me, what did it learn you about fengshui in particular?
See above ("Heaven and Earth in Early Han Times").
> Put forward the cases that shows some trace of legitimacy of your
> claim and maybe I also will be convinced, as you are. But I see to
> results in the real world. The proof is in the pudding.
I don't have the cases, but we could maybe do it with theory. To keep with
your saying "The proof is in the pudding (but the secret is in receipt)" :o)
(Or to be clearer, while it's true that the proof is in the pudding, you
should first know the ingredients, proportions and the procedure.)
--
Wansui!
Boyler
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler,
>This does not mean that the two norths didn't coincided at "that time" and
>at
>"that place".
Accidentally.
>> So they used MN.
>
>And maybe at the same time TN :o)
Yes maybe, one for the geographical location, true north, and one for
the fengshui of the place, magnetic north.
>You should get acquainted with Chinese history too. There were, in ancient
>time, some original thinkers (some of them anonymous). Later, their
>teachings were blindly followed, and their works copied and recopied. Same
>goes with fengshui masters who blindly followed teachings of famous fengshui
>masters.
I take it you by 'blindly' imply they were wrong in some way. What did
they do wrong?
> Also, kind of superstition could be noticed in prayer pronounced
>each time before luopan is used.
Nothing strange in a traditional society to give a prayer before an
important task. It has been done in most, or all, societies. It may be
called superstitious but that is just biased on our part.
>Another blind point is neglecting that all
>the culture of which the fengshu is just a tiny part originated in northern
>hemisphere, and that early Chinese cosmology is based on observation of
>heaven and earth just from the point of the Middle Kingdom. There is no need
>to explain it to anyone who knows something about early Chinese cosmology.
>It's self evident.
Evidently, I have never denied that. But I say it doesn't mean
anything because fengshui evolved as a universal knowledge, and you
say it means a lot because this shows they were not aware of the
implications for southern hemisphere.
>Wait a minute. Although I do not quite understand your use and
>interpretation of qualitative and quantitative, it seems to me (maybe I am
>wrong) that there is something wrong in your exposition above. You said Sima
>Qian saying is from a qualitative viewpoint. But Big Dipper pointing to four
>geographic directions (regions), not magnetic ones. Later you said the
>fengshui is the qualitative part (same as Sima Qian's), but this time it's
>about magnetic north. Could you explain?
It's an example of the existence of a qualitative viewpoint and that
to read old texts without taking it into account is often to miss the
point. Quality is that which make a thing what it is, its uniqueness.
Quantity is that which strives toward undifferentiation. Pure numbers
are that which best represents quantity. In reality nothing can be
only quantity and still exist, without quality there is nothing
sensible in this world.
So when I say magnetic north is used to assess the fengshui of a
location I really say it's assessing its quality and its uniqueness.
On the other hand, geographical determination is only that. One
geographical point is just as good as another seen purely as a located
place. This is the viewpoint of most people: One place is just as good
as another and living there has nothing to do with becoming rich,
poor, sick or whatever. But since quality can't be discharged with it
enters into consideration anyway when people look to the surroundings
of their home, if its an attractive building, what kind of people
lives in the area, if its 'nice', and so on.
>> That is probably why the ancient masters 'obeyed'
>> the compass, because they saw in it the presence of a powerfull
>> quality. It was nothing superstitious att all. Just logic in line with
>> the worldview of the time.
>
>Could you support above with some quote from any fengshui book or some other
>authentic source?
No, its just my 'deduction'. :-)
>> Since fengshui seems to be mostly the practise of qualitative
>> measurements geography must have been taken care of more or less when
>> the practical need for it came forth. As, in the use of the compass in
>> navigation for example. That is why you have read about its relation
>> to the sun in that old text, 'cause its a quantitative viewpoint. The
>> reason it's missing in fengshui texts is because this sun - compass
>> relation doesn't concern the practise and aim of fengshui, which is
>> the qualitative measurment of a location.
>
>How do you explain use of solar luopan by some masters.
How could it be explaind other than they probably were aware of true
north and used it to determine the geographical location of a place?
As experts they would know if there was any difference in the fenghsui
between using true north and magnetic north. Using either type of
compass they could easely shift between them by a simple calculation.
In practise, how frequent will the mountain direction change?
>Have you read Stephen Skinner's "The Living Earth Manual of Feng-Shui /
>Chinese Geomancy"?
Who is Skinner? If he is not a scholar I'm not interested. Only
non-scholars I listen to with even more interest are respected Chinese
practitioners. Like acupuncture. You 'never' find anyone as good as
one who is Chinese.
>So it's time to learn some basics of Chinese cosmology, because
>(unfortunately) I don't have time to rewrite here pages and pages from the
>books.
Why not study with a genuine teacher instead of reading all those
books?
>My point was that we cannot blindly believe that an instrument
>(watch/compass) shows true value (of time/direction) just because we have
>it, and use it. In case of compass, even if we agree on magnetic north, its
>readings could be wrong.
In what way wrong? IMO, you think too much in quantitative terms. What
you call 'true' you only seem to relate to quantitative measures. It's
an impossible stand when trying to understand metaphysics.
>> Prove what? That fengshui works? Whenever a new idea comes up the
>> burden of proof is on those who propose it. Nice try to turn the table
>> :-).
>
>I am aware of the burden (and of my incompetence), but as fengshui is
>metaphysics, hardly that anything about it could be proved, except maybe
>some theory/teaching (in respect to early Chinese cosmology).
Maybe not proved, but strong indiciums must be present. How could it
be otherwise when fengshui is a method to determine the essence of a
location and how it will affect peoples quality of life? In this way
fengshui is very practical and using it should have an impact. What is
the point otherwise? If one want to study methaphysiqs there is the
esoteric tradition in China as well as other traditions. Granted that
fengshui can be taken as a metaphysical starting point the study goes
beyond that.
>> BTW, when Sima Qian quoted above saying the Dipper regulates the
>> four region, isn't that a clear indication that fengshui is universal,
>> and that southern fengshui is out of the question?
>
>Not at all. Big Dipper cannot be seen from southern hemisphere, therefore a
>culture living at southern hemisphere cannot rely on it for
>determining/regulating the four regions or even seasons.
Still they have seasons.
>Even if it could be
>done, at least seasons would be totally wrongly indicated (that is when it
>points east on northern hemisphere would be spring but on northern it would
>be autumn) and this we could not call universal, could we?
If fengshui can be applied there the same way as in the north it is
universal. But even if adjustments are necessary, if the same
principles apply fengshui still is universal.
>Unfortunately, as far I know there is no indication whatsoever in early
>Chinese literature that they knew about roundness of the earth. Please read
>"Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought" by John S. Major. I can see you are
>really interested, and if it is true, you won't regret it.
Who is J.S. Major?
>> I'm happy you've penetrated these depths. But you still can't
>> satisfactorly explain, IMO, why southern fengshui is viable.
>
>Complete explanation would have to wait till I write an article about it,
>when I get some more spare time (and there are still some works I have to
>study first).
Great. I'm looking forward to it.
>
>> Please explain why it it so due to its pointing out in "Huau Nan Zi".
>
>Because it's an early work where is explained much of terminology we use in
>fengshui now. It's *must* for every serious fengshui student.
I'm not serious then. I find it more rewarding to lend my ear to
todays serious teachers, to the degree time and money allow, and apply
their teachings to see the results. However, I'm sure that book is
interesting.
>True. But it's not the time nor place to bring out any proofs. If all goes
>well there will be an article about it (hopefully with help from some more
>knowledgeable person that I am). Southern hemisphere fengshui cannot be
>proved in a sentence or in a mail. It should be systematic and easy to
>follow exposition, a theory if you want. And potential readers should decide
>for themselves which way to follow. None could be forced into it.
Fine. I would be _very_ surprised if true north is to be used, less
surprised if any substancial indication show the need for a southern
version.
But also think about those who have learned enough serious fengshui
and who practise it in the southern hemisphere. I guess they are not
so few by now. Do they adjust for southern hemisphere or not? How is
it that they can't come up with results as to what is and what isn't?
They, we, can't even agree on move in date or construction date. It
all makes fengshui look rather ridicilous since it's not a point to
'agree' on. Those who apply the theory correctly and understands it
knows what's right. It's not a question of being 'forced' too or not.
It's about understanding and adhering to some core principles.
>Don't worry. You are very helpful. And I tend not to involve emotively in
>what I do. "Take not gain and loss to heart" ("Yijing" 35.5). But I always
>gladly enter such a discussion with people who strongly oppose it, because
>in this way I find out a thing or two about which I have to pay my attention
>when I am writing the article. Stronger the arguments, stronger is the
>challenge, and more I have to study.
Glad to hear it and I appreciate your liberal attitude without which
we couldn't have any discussion.
>> Turning the table won't work.
>
>Well, I tried :o)
It's part of the game.
>You're right, they mean something other than 'cases'. There are some
>"recent" theoretic discoveries, proved much later to be true, or yet to be
>proved.
???
>> Their only obligation are to themselves and to their own integrity.
>> They are not "gods". BTW isn't this 'Master' thing rather old
>> fashioned?
>
>Agreed.
Having said that I do believe the 'master' should discuss more their
differences. The rivalry is to be expected and only human I guess, but
if they just could 'join their forces' a little. Could be a good thing
:-)
>I don't have the cases, but we could maybe do it with theory. To keep with
>your saying "The proof is in the pudding (but the secret is in receipt)" :o)
>(Or to be clearer, while it's true that the proof is in the pudding, you
>should first know the ingredients, proportions and the procedure.)
It's not necessary to read a lot in old texts to learn today from
living sources. That is quite enough to be able to check for
confirmation of the theories. If that can't be done what is the use in
reading old and often badly translated books, if one not is a scholar
who is familiar with the language?
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> subscribers, "masters" and their students even don't know the use of the
28
> xiu circle on the luopan which related to astronomy and/or astrology, how
> can they know their school of fengshui is authentic???
I don't know about "masters" and their students, but the ring is on both
luopans (Sanhe and Sanyuan). Aren't they authentic?
--
Wansui!
Boyler
Matusan Robert - Boyler
Sorry for late response, but I've been busy lately.
> Yes maybe, one for the geographical location, true north, and one for
> the fengshui of the place, magnetic north.
There is no any indication in early works that they noticed any difference
between the two.
> I take it you by 'blindly' imply they were wrong in some way. What did
> they do wrong?
Many of them had a dogmatic approach to the subject. That is, they only
copied things.
> > Also, kind of superstition could be noticed in prayer pronounced
> >each time before luopan is used.
>
> Nothing strange in a traditional society to give a prayer before an
> important task. It has been done in most, or all, societies. It may be
> called superstitious but that is just biased on our part.
Do you know how prayer goes?
> Evidently, I have never denied that. But I say it doesn't mean
> anything because fengshui evolved as a universal knowledge,
Could you elaborate this universal knowledge?
> and you
> say it means a lot because this shows they were not aware of the
> implications for southern hemisphere.
True.
> It's an example of the existence of a qualitative viewpoint and that
> to read old texts without taking it into account is often to miss the
> point. Quality is that which make a thing what it is, its uniqueness.
> Quantity is that which strives toward undifferentiation. Pure numbers
> are that which best represents quantity. In reality nothing can be
> only quantity and still exist, without quality there is nothing
> sensible in this world.
>
> So when I say magnetic north is used to assess the fengshui of a
> location I really say it's assessing its quality and its uniqueness.
> On the other hand, geographical determination is only that. One
> geographical point is just as good as another seen purely as a located
> place. This is the viewpoint of most people: One place is just as good
> as another and living there has nothing to do with becoming rich,
> poor, sick or whatever. But since quality can't be discharged with it
> enters into consideration anyway when people look to the surroundings
> of their home, if its an attractive building, what kind of people
> lives in the area, if its 'nice', and so on.
What above has to do with magnetism (magnetic north) in assessing its
quality and its uniqueness?
> No, its just my 'deduction'. :-)
A person usually deduce some conclusion based on some information. So I'll
change my question and ask you what are information you used to come to the
'deduction'? My deduction is based on the translations of ancient Chinese
classics and books (primary sources) I read.
> Why not study with a genuine teacher instead of reading all those
> books?
How do you know who is genuine teacher if you don't know the teaching
itself?
> In what way wrong? IMO, you think too much in quantitative terms. What
> you call 'true' you only seem to relate to quantitative measures. It's
> an impossible stand when trying to understand metaphysics.
On the contrary.
> Still they have seasons.
The question was not "do they have seasons", but is Sima Qian's quote clear
indication that fengshui is universal, and that southern fengshui is out of
the question.
> Great. I'm looking forward to it.
Honestly, me to. I spent a lot of time discussing this privately, on lists,
and on the NG, so I am little bit tired of repeating myself. I'll try to
give my best, but it would take some more time, because, as I said, I have
to study some more works, and do more diggings. Also, I'll would like to
contact some experts in the field, and hope that, with their help, it would
be a good and interesting reading.
Unfortunately I would not be able to attend the conference in Köln, Germany,
so I won't meet some dear persons I acquainted on mailing lists, forums,
etc, and I'll also miss the lecture by Siou Foon Lee about the subject, but
I think she also missed the point.
> I'm not serious then. I find it more rewarding to lend my ear to
> todays serious teachers, to the degree time and money allow, and apply
> their teachings to see the results. However, I'm sure that book is
> interesting.
I won't ask you this time how do you know that today's teachers are serious
(qualified) if you didn't studied easily accessible works from which the
teaching originated, because it's your choice. Also, you can't be sure the
book is interesting :o)
> Fine. I would be _very_ surprised if true north is to be used, less
> surprised if any substancial indication show the need for a southern
> version.
Don't worry :o)
> But also think about those who have learned enough serious fengshui
> and who practise it in the southern hemisphere. I guess they are not
> so few by now. Do they adjust for southern hemisphere or not?
Some do, some don't, depending on which teacher they follow.
> How is
> it that they can't come up with results as to what is and what isn't?
Well, the Hermit did it, as far as I know. And I'll use this opportunity to
ask him (if he read this) to give us his case study (mentioned in the NG)
which, in his opinion, proves "north hemisphere - only" theory. I would like
to see how he had done both readings. I suppose the subject comes out his
ears, but if he does not respond (either positively or negatively) to this
request, I'll consider he didn't read this, and I'll try to contact him
privately. His case study could prove to be very interesting and useful.
> They, we, can't even agree on move in date or construction date. It
> all makes fengshui look rather ridicilous since it's not a point to
> 'agree' on. Those who apply the theory correctly and understands it
> knows what's right. It's not a question of being 'forced' too or not.
> It's about understanding and adhering to some core principles.
This is exactly what I am talking about. The question is what someone
"believes" to be understanding of some core principles.
> Glad to hear it and I appreciate your liberal attitude without which
> we couldn't have any discussion.
I wouldn't call it a liberal attitude, and here is (like it or not :o))
another story which quite well (I think) illustrates my way of thinking
about the subject, and I hope you'll understand the point :o) :
"Zhang Yi wanted to attack Qi and Jing with the allied forces of Qin, Han
and Wei, while Hui Shi wanted to halt the war by befriending Chi and Jing.
The two opened a debate. The officials and chamberlains all spoke in favor
of Zhang Zi, pointing out the advantage of attacking Qi and Jing, while
nobody spoke in favor of Hui Zi. The King actually followed Zhang Zi's
advice, considering Hui Zi's proposal impracticable. After the expedition
against Qi and Jing had been successfully carried out, Hui Zi went into the
court to have an audience, when the King said: 'Sir, you should not have
said anything at all. The expedition against Qi and Jing actually turned out
to our advantage. And the whole nation has so expected.' Thereupon Hui Zi
said: 'May Your Majesty not refrain from deliberating upon the whole
situation! Indeed, the expedition against Qi and Jing turned out to our
advantage. And so had the whole nation expected. How numerous wise men were!
If the expedition against Qi and Jing turned out to our disadvantage, then
how numerous must stupid men have been? After all, every scheme is a doubt
from the outset. Who really doubts at all, usually considers every scheme
half practicable and half impracticable. Now that all brains of nation took
the practicable side, it means that Your Majesty lost half the brains,
namely, the brains of the negative side. The sovereign intimidated by wicked
ministers is, as a rule, a loser of half the brains in the country." (form
"Hanfeizi") (BTW syho helped me to find the hard to find book, and I am
grateful)
This is why I like syho's messages very much :o) It's not so much important
who is right and who's wrong, but to be objective and take in consideration
all possibilities.
> It's part of the game.
:o)
> ???
Say, the most known one is discovery of "black holes".
> Having said that I do believe the 'master' should discuss more their
> differences. The rivalry is to be expected and only human I guess, but
> if they just could 'join their forces' a little. Could be a good thing
I am afraid it won't be possible for the moment. The trend is that each
master pulls it on her/his side.
> It's not necessary to read a lot in old texts to learn today from
> living sources. That is quite enough to be able to check for
> confirmation of the theories.
But there's possibility the theories were misunderstood in course of time,
and it shows in loupan too.
> If that can't be done what is the use in
> reading old and often badly translated books, if one not is a scholar
> who is familiar with the language?
Fortunately I do not read such a books :o)
--
Wansui!
Boyler
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler,
>> Yes maybe, one for the geographical location, true north, and one for
>> the fengshui of the place, magnetic north.
>
>There is no any indication in early works that they noticed any difference
>between the two.
Which tells nothing. Other than 'it could have been this or that'.
>> I take it you by 'blindly' imply they were wrong in some way. What did
>> they do wrong?
>
>Many of them had a dogmatic approach to the subject. That is, they only
>copied things.
May I remind you that 'dogmatic' means 'true to origin'. Of course now
a days it means something else. But for them it was a question of
being true to origins.
>> Nothing strange in a traditional society to give a prayer before an
>> important task. It has been done in most, or all, societies. It may be
>> called superstitious but that is just biased on our part.
>
>Do you know how prayer goes?
A prayer is a way of calling on the deity. It's you who define it as a
prayer. If you want to censor it maybe you should change your
description to something else, like 'superstitious babble',
'witchcraft' or whatever you may come up with.
>> Evidently, I have never denied that. But I say it doesn't mean
>> anything because fengshui evolved as a universal knowledge,
>
>Could you elaborate this universal knowledge?
You mean, could I elaborate fengshui? It is a universal knowledge
applicable anywhere att any time to assess the nature of a site.
Universal also equals coherent, meaning that in principle one should
be able to start from any angle and arrive at basically the same
conclusion.
>> It's an example of the existence of a qualitative viewpoint and that
>> to read old texts without taking it into account is often to miss the
>> point. Quality is that which make a thing what it is, its uniqueness.
>> Quantity is that which strives toward undifferentiation. Pure numbers
>> are that which best represents quantity. In reality nothing can be
>> only quantity and still exist, without quality there is nothing
>> sensible in this world.
>>
>> So when I say magnetic north is used to assess the fengshui of a
>> location I really say it's assessing its quality and its uniqueness.
>> On the other hand, geographical determination is only that. One
>> geographical point is just as good as another seen purely as a located
>> place. This is the viewpoint of most people: One place is just as good
>> as another and living there has nothing to do with becoming rich,
>> poor, sick or whatever. But since quality can't be discharged with it
>> enters into consideration anyway when people look to the surroundings
>> of their home, if its an attractive building, what kind of people
>> lives in the area, if its 'nice', and so on.
>
>What above has to do with magnetism (magnetic north) in assessing its
>quality and its uniqueness?
You may remeber I reacted in opposition to your view about true north
being the correct north to use, instead I proposed magnetic north as
the correct indicator of the fengshui of a place. So read above
carefully again where I explain some of the reasons I have for this.
Then maybe you see the light instead of trying to avoid it.:-)
BTW how come migrating animals use magnetic north instead of 'true'
north? Of course it's not so much about 'a place' as a place that fits
their need for food and mating, in short its quality.
>> No, its just my 'deduction'. :-)
>
>A person usually deduce some conclusion based on some information. So I'll
>change my question and ask you what are information you used to come to the
>'deduction'? My deduction is based on the translations of ancient Chinese
>classics and books (primary sources) I read.
In spite of that, and the supposed excellence of your information, you
obviously havn't pondered the difference in worldview between our
society and theirs. Try Rudolf Ottos "Das Heilige" and "Le Sacré et le
Profane" by Mircea Eliade: "To the religious person space is not
homogeneous......it contains certain parts, qualitatively different
from the others." They were both scholars not inclined to random
inventions.
>> Why not study with a genuine teacher instead of reading all those
>> books?
>
>How do you know who is genuine teacher if you don't know the teaching
>itself?
It must have escaped you how important the lineage of teaching are to
Chinese practitioners.
>> Still they have seasons.
>
>The question was not "do they have seasons", but is Sima Qian's quote clear
>indication that fengshui is universal, and that southern fengshui is out of
>the question.
No, not really, but a clear indication of the existense of a
qualitative viewpoint. That was the point of the example.
>Honestly, me to. I spent a lot of time discussing this privately, on lists,
>and on the NG, so I am little bit tired of repeating myself. I'll try to
>give my best, but it would take some more time, because, as I said, I have
>to study some more works, and do more diggings. Also, I'll would like to
>contact some experts in the field, and hope that, with their help, it would
>be a good and interesting reading.
Hopefully you will announce it here when you're ready. Please be clear
with your theories so that they can be tested.
>Unfortunately I would not be able to attend the conference in Köln, Germany,
>so I won't meet some dear persons I acquainted on mailing lists, forums,
>etc, and I'll also miss the lecture by Siou Foon Lee about the subject, but
>I think she also missed the point.
I won't ask you in what way she presumably does that since it only
will lead to another of your circle of comments.
>However, I'm sure that book is interesting.
>Also, you can't be sure the book is interesting :o)
Cullen, in the book I refered too earlier, has many references to it,
so I'm still pretty sure it's interesting. How you choose books to
read when you don't have a feel for what it is with them that may
interest you, I don't know.
>> Fine. I would be _very_ surprised if true north is to be used, less
>> surprised if any substancial indication show the need for a southern
>> version.
>
>Don't worry :o)
I'm not.
>> But also think about those who have learned enough serious fengshui
>> and who practise it in the southern hemisphere. I guess they are not
>> so few by now. Do they adjust for southern hemisphere or not?
>
>Some do, some don't, depending on which teacher they follow.
The looseness of fengshui and its followers.
>> How is
>> it that they can't come up with results as to what is and what isn't?
>Well, the Hermit did it, as far as I know. And I'll use this opportunity to
>ask him (if he read this) to give us his case study (mentioned in the NG)
>which, in his opinion, proves "north hemisphere - only" theory. I would like
>to see how he had done both readings. I suppose the subject comes out his
>ears
Maybe because he adress blind people.
>, but if he does not respond (either positively or negatively) to this
>request, I'll consider he didn't read this, and I'll try to contact him
>privately. His case study could prove to be very interesting and useful.
Indeed. But the burden of proof is really with your position.
>> They, we, can't even agree on move in date or construction date. It
>> all makes fengshui look rather ridicilous since it's not a point to
>> 'agree' on. Those who apply the theory correctly and understands it
>> knows what's right. It's not a question of being 'forced' too or not.
>> It's about understanding and adhering to some core principles.
>
>This is exactly what I am talking about. The question is what someone
>"believes" to be understanding of some core principles.
Is questioning for the sake of it 'scientific'? I will tell you how
it's done. First a theory is put forward. Then a model for testing it
is laid out. Then everybody tries to prove the theory is wrong. Please
take advantage of this information.
For example, sanyuan is a school which use a certain methodology
identified by its characterisitic elements. Those core elements can be
used as a modell for testing. Of course, this is almost impossible to
do in the world of fengshui since we all, or most of us, seems to have
wobblebrains lacking basic intellectual disciplin and honesty.
Especially those which not are chinese.
>Say, the most known one is discovery of "black holes".
What this proves is beyond me.
>I am afraid it won't be possible for the moment. The trend is that each
>master pulls it on her/his side.
I heard one master did an audit and the people got much money but sick
simultaneously. Why is it that such results do not touch the
practioners? They don't discuss it with their peers, and if they do
seemingly can't conclude anything. That audit was partly right but
obviously had something wrong with it. Well, maybe they talk in
Köln....
>But there's possibility the theories were misunderstood in course of time,
>and it shows in loupan too.
It's no argument for not testing their validity.
>> If that can't be done what is the use in
>> reading old and often badly translated books, if one not is a scholar
>> who is familiar with the language?
>
>Fortunately I do not read such a books :o)
How do you know beforehand that they're not any good? According to you
I couldn't know if a book was interesting before I read it (allthoug I
have a pretty good inclination in that case).
That's how your arguments keeps spinning around to fit your aim.
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
> Which tells nothing. Other than 'it could have been this or that'.
Exactly. But while this tell nothing to you, it tells a lot to someone else.
> May I remind you that 'dogmatic' means 'true to origin'.
Where did you found this. I thought it originally meant "to seem (good)".
> Of course now
> a days it means something else.
I used it in this context.
> But for them it was a question of
> being true to origins.
Aha. I see.
> A prayer is a way of calling on the deity. It's you who define it as a
> prayer. If you want to censor it maybe you should change your
> description to something else, like 'superstitious babble',
> 'witchcraft' or whatever you may come up with.
Why did you got impression I would come up with something like that. I
respect institution of prayer. But the contents of the prayer speaks for
itself.
> You mean, could I elaborate fengshui? It is a universal knowledge
> applicable anywhere att any time to assess the nature of a site.
> Universal also equals coherent, meaning that in principle one should
> be able to start from any angle and arrive at basically the same
> conclusion.
This is exactly what fengshui is not, and if you know something about
Chinese cosmology you'd know why. I'll give you a hint. What is cosmology?
Where came from the word "universal" (in your "universal knowledge")? (Here
is the link: http://www.m-w.com/) (Try with "dogma" too.)
Are the two talking about the same thing? Do you know how ancient
Chinese perceived their universe? If you are interested try to find and read
the book
I recommended to you before. When you do it, then we can continue our
discussion.
Why some beginners frequently ask questions about true north or magnetic
north, and southern hemisphere? Is this because the knowledge is universal?
Or because they noticed some difference between the two. What is qi? Is it
universal? How come then there is no life on the Moon? Etc, etc.
> BTW how come migrating animals use magnetic north instead of 'true'
> north? Of course it's not so much about 'a place' as a place that fits
> their need for food and mating, in short its quality.
Not all migrating animals use magnetic north.
> In spite of that, and the supposed excellence of your information, you
> obviously havn't pondered the difference in worldview between our
> society and theirs. Try Rudolf Ottos "Das Heilige" and "Le Sacré et le
> Profane" by Mircea Eliade: "To the religious person space is not
> homogeneous......it contains certain parts, qualitatively different
> from the others." They were both scholars not inclined to random
> inventions.
Why you think I haven't pondered the difference in worldview between our
society and theirs?
> It must have escaped you how important the lineage of teaching are to
> Chinese practitioners.
How do you know the teaching transmitted in the lineage is genuine?
> No, not really, but a clear indication of the existense of a
> qualitative viewpoint. That was the point of the example.
Sorry, silly me, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking Sima Qian's
quote is clear indication that fengshui is universal, and that southern
fengshui is out of the question. And in fact you were talking of a
qualitative viewpoint.
> Hopefully you will announce it here when you're ready. Please be clear
> with your theories so that they can be tested.
Sure. No problem.
> Cullen, in the book I refered too earlier, has many references to it,
> so I'm still pretty sure it's interesting. How you choose books to
> read when you don't have a feel for what it is with them that may
> interest you, I don't know.
Now I am sure you are sure it's interesting. Now we have only to wait till
you read it. BTW then why did you asked me who is John S. Major?
> Maybe because he adress blind people.
Could be.
> Indeed. But the burden of proof is really with your position.
I know. This is exactly why I would like to hear about his case study.
> Is questioning for the sake of it 'scientific'? I will tell you how
> it's done. First a theory is put forward. Then a model for testing it
> is laid out. Then everybody tries to prove the theory is wrong. Please
> take advantage of this information.
I will. Thank you. But you should keep in mind that fengshui is not a
science, and that hardly anything could be proven.
> What this proves is beyond me.
I said that some discoveries are purely theoretical. This is one of them.
> It's no argument for not testing their validity.
It was not argument at all.
> How do you know beforehand that they're not any good? According to you
> I couldn't know if a book was interesting before I read it (allthoug I
> have a pretty good inclination in that case).
Pure intuition :o)
> That's how your arguments keeps spinning around to fit your aim.
You may as well step out if you feel dizzy.
--
Wansui!
Boyler
tgrem...@swipnet.se
<robert....@ri.tel.hr> wrote:
Hi Boyler
>Exactly. But while this tell nothing to you, it tells a lot to someone else.
If you can't do more than suggest things it's unintersting.
>Why did you got impression I would come up with something like that. I
>respect institution of prayer. But the contents of the prayer speaks for
>itself.
If you respect the institution of prayer you should respect the prayer
or call it something else.
>This is exactly what fengshui is not, and if you know something about
>Chinese cosmology you'd know why. I'll give you a hint. What is cosmology?
>Where came from the word "universal" (in your "universal knowledge")? (Here
>is the link: http://www.m-w.com/) (Try with "dogma" too.)
To me it's like you can't differentiate between cosmography and
cosmolgy. At least I know how to apply fengshui and use it in a
practical context, which you say is not possible since real cases are
not reliable. You are left with your own speculations and inventions.
>Are the two talking about the same thing? Do you know how ancient
>Chinese perceived their universe? If you are interested try to find and read
>the book
>I recommended to you before. When you do it, then we can continue our
>discussion.
We can't.
>Why some beginners frequently ask questions about true north or magnetic
>north, and southern hemisphere?
If someone not knowing the way ask if the right direction is toward
'A' doesn't mean that 'A' direction is correct when the right
direction is 'B'.
>Is this because the knowledge is universal?
Of course not. It's because they don't know which one is correct.
>Or because they noticed some difference between the two. What is qi? Is it
>universal? How come then there is no life on the Moon? Etc, etc.
If you only can think of 'universal' in spatial terms you just show
your inaptitude to reflect symbollically and in metaphors. Hence,
while you belive you study cosmology you really only concern yourself
with cosmography.
>Not all migrating animals use magnetic north.
Those who migrate long distances through space.
>Why you think I haven't pondered the difference in worldview between our
>society and theirs?
Because you don't show it.
>How do you know the teaching transmitted in the lineage is genuine?
I find this questioning in absurdum quite destructive. Do you mean
teachers like Eva Wong, Joey Yap, Joseph Yu, Yap Cheng Hai has less
credibillity than you? I can't believe this. But of course, you have
to put out doubt regarding common practise among respected teachers
since they use magnetic north which you say is wrong.
>Sorry, silly me, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking Sima Qian's
>quote is clear indication that fengshui is universal, and that southern
>fengshui is out of the question. And in fact you were talking of a
>qualitative viewpoint.
Irony....is so convenient.
>> Indeed. But the burden of proof is really with your position.
>
>I know. This is exactly why I would like to hear about his case study.
Oh sure. Then you can say it's fake.
>I will. Thank you. But you should keep in mind that fengshui is not a
>science, and that hardly anything could be proven.
If a premise click in 2/3rds or more of the cases, or simply in more
cases than can be explained by chance, it's a strong indication even
in scientific terms.
>> That's how your arguments keeps spinning around to fit your aim.
>
>You may as well step out if you feel dizzy.
I will. Thanx anyway for the conversation!
Frank
Matusan Robert - Boyler
Since you withdraw, I'll try to write this message without asking you
questions, although my questions to you were not there for you to answer but
to make you think.
> If you can't do more than suggest things it's unintersting.
This depends on a person. Some like to think, and some like things served.
> If you respect the institution of prayer you should respect the prayer
> or call it something else.
If you know the contents of the prayer, you would understand why I used word
"dogmatic".
> To me it's like you can't differentiate between cosmography and
> cosmolgy.
You were the one who couldn't differentiate between "dogmatism" and
"orthodoxy". So it does not surprise me that it's to you like I can't
differentiate cosmography and cosmology, especially when we both know that
you don't know nothing about Chinese cosmology, as well as about Chinese
cosmography. And these two are, for your information, closely related.
Please take some good book in your hands. It won't hurt you :o)
> At least I know how to apply fengshui and use it in a
> practical context,
I hope you do not do that for other people :o)
> which you say is not possible since real cases are
> not reliable.
I stay with it. Fengshui is metaphysics. "Real cases" heavily depend on how
much one believes in it. Many use New Age fengshui, and it works for them
too. Authenticity and/or reliability of fengshui depends only on firm
mastering of basic concepts (based on Chinese cosmology) written down more
than 2000 years ago.
> You are left with your own speculations and inventions.
These could be speculations, but hardly inventions. I could not invent
something that was common knowledge (in certain circles) more than 2000
years ago.
> We can't.
I'll take it to mean that you don't want to read the book. Your choice.
> If someone not knowing the way ask if the right direction is toward
> 'A' doesn't mean that 'A' direction is correct when the right
> direction is 'B'.
You missed the point again.
> Of course not. It's because they don't know which one is correct.
Sometimes some beginners have more understanding then some who claim to know
something. This is one of such a cases.
> If you only can think of 'universal' in spatial terms you just show
> your inaptitude to reflect symbollically and in metaphors. Hence,
> while you belive you study cosmology you really only concern yourself
> with cosmography.
There is no such a thing as universal knowledge, not spatial, not
symbolical, even not spiritual. I don't know where you come with such a (New
Age) nonsense, especially in the context of authentic Chinese fengshui.
> Those who migrate long distances through space.
...and sometimes get lost in the mist.
> Because you don't show it.
There was none I could show it to.
> I find this questioning in absurdum quite destructive. Do you mean
> teachers like Eva Wong, Joey Yap, Joseph Yu, Yap Cheng Hai has less
> credibillity than you?
I have no doubts they are very knowledgeable, but I do not believe
unquestionably what they say or what they write. Although they poses some
knowledge about the subject, I didn't noticed they showed an understanding
of Chinese cosmology (which is basics of all fengshui teachings). So there
could be some discrepancy. Difference between me and you is that you choose
to believe them, and I choose to question the teaching itself.
> can't believe this. But of course, you have
> to put out doubt regarding common practise among respected teachers
> since they use magnetic north which you say is wrong.
It's my right to question authority. If not so I would reduce myself to mere
believer, and this is not what I want. Besides the names you listed above
are not only ones in fengshui world, but just loudest ones, and that only in
the West perhaps.
> Irony....is so convenient.
You didn't left me no other choice :o)
> Oh sure. Then you can say it's fake.
Could be, I don't know. But it seems you know what I would say :o) It would
be bad if you have such an attitude in other things too.
> If a premise click in 2/3rds or more of the cases, or simply in more
> cases than can be explained by chance, it's a strong indication even
> in scientific terms.
As well as placebo effect. (BTW it seems you are very easy to convince. It
makes me think why I could not convince you too. Maybe because I didn't
introduced myself as Grandmaster Boyler :o))
> I will. Thanx anyway for the conversation!
You're welcome. Feel free to jump in when you get better :o)
--
Wansui!
Boyler