Can I trust an amulet because its teacher warned never to let anyone replace it?

A prior warning never to let anyone replace it should not end investigation of present circumstances. A client received a talisman supposedly accompanied by protecting troops. She sensed unseen company but was unafraid because she believed it protective.

After reading the talisman, consulting the Bodhisattva and using chess divination, I judged from the perceptions and reading that it was not the divine troops she expected. I proposed handling the original talisman and asking genuine divine troops to assist.

She initially agreed, but stopped while preparing to hand it over, remembering the teacher’s warning that someone would call its contents ghosts and insist on replacement. She was told never to agree. Afraid to proceed, she declined, so we neither handled the original nor sent other troops. Her refusal ended the matter then.

Later I heard limited updates through the introducer: initially fine, later less smooth, then contact ceased. I do not know the final outcome. My reminder is to clarify actual circumstances rather than allow a pre-emptive statement to block every further opportunity for understanding and judgment.

Another client received a small card whose giver said it was specifically for them and could not be passed on. I suggested particular intentions or energy might have been placed for that recipient, but whether good or bad needed understanding. This was a separate case. ‘Do not give it away’ is not a full explanation; ask why before judging.

Discussing such experiences later, I also mentioned the person treating smoother work and financial fortune as reasons to trust the protection. Present benefits and the reasonableness of later demands still differ. A warning never to listen to anyone questioning it especially risks removing opportunities for fresh understanding.