Why can't we just look at one point and draw a conclusion?

Any character, ten gods, or combination in the horoscope are just clues. Clues can remind you to look in a certain direction, but they cannot directly turn into a conclusion. For example, if you see the Sun Branch being opposed, it can only mean that the intimate position has been triggered; if you see the Wealth Star being strong, it can only mean that the resource theme is obvious; if you see the Wounded Officer, it can only mean that expression, output, or anti-rule power has emerged. None of them have yet answered "whether it is stable, successful, and realistic."

The more eye-catching the configuration, the easier it is for people to skip the overall structure. A strong collision, a combination, and an obvious ten gods will naturally attract attention, but the disk does not revolve around this point. It could be a thread, or it could just be noise; it could be a problem, or it could be an entry point into a solution. We must first see if there is any relationship between it and the sun master, the moon order, the other ten gods, and the great fortune.

• ·First ask which level this point falls on: natal structure, relationship position, time trigger, or supplementary information.
• ·Ask if there is a second or third piece of evidence pointing to the same topic.
• ·-Finally, ask if there is any counter-evidence: whether there is buffering, transformation, acceptance, or the actual conditions do not match.

A conflict in the day branch may be a disturbance in the relationship, or it may be a move, a change in the relationship, family intervention, a change in the partner's stage, or even a run-in before the relationship is upgraded. Only when relationship stars, diurnal branches, timelines, and states of reality repeatedly point to rupture can the intensity of judgment be increased. Otherwise, a more stable expression is "the position of intimate relationships is easily triggered, and you need to look at the reality to take over."

A prosperous wealth star may mean a lot of resources, or it may mean a lot of desires, tasks, expenses, and collaborations. It depends on whether the sun master can inherit wealth, whether food injuries can generate wealth, whether official killings can protect wealth, whether tribulations can distribute wealth, and whether great luck can be given to the window. Just looking at the wealth star is like seeing someone at the door, but not knowing whether you can enter the house or stay.

If a point is echoed repeatedly by multiple layers, it is no longer just a single point. For example, if a certain theme is obvious in one's natal life, the great fortune is magnified, and the fleeting year triggers it again, and there are corresponding events in reality, then the intensity of judgment can be increased. The point is not "this point is strong" but "it is proven to be the main line by multiple layers of evidence".

Every time you write a sentence of judgment, add three questions: Where does the evidence come from? Are there any repeats? Where are the boundaries? If these three questions cannot be answered, this sentence should be downgraded to "possible", "tendency", and "need to see again" rather than written as a definite conclusion.

Seeing a certain word, a certain ten gods, or a certain combination can only mean that there are clues here. Whether it can become a conclusion depends on whether there is repeated support from other locations, whether it is triggered by the time layer, and whether it is taken over in reality.

Because it is fast and spreads easily. But the real difficulty of BaZi lies in the multi-layered relationships. The faster the assertion, the more alert you should be to whether it omits a condition.

If a theme echoes in the daily branches, ten gods, moon orders, and the Grand Fortune, the judgment will be much more stable. Repeating evidence is not verbose, but gives the conclusion a foundation.

A conflict, a combination, a divine evil, and a ten gods can easily be described as a dramatic conclusion, because this is the most arresting. But arresting people does not mean being accurate. In-depth articles must dare to dismantle this sense of drama and replace it with slower but more stable judgments.

Each single point is just a puzzle piece. Only when it is put back into the whole picture will you know whether it is a key piece. When the entire image is missing, even if a single point is very bright, it cannot be enlarged hastily.