Body marks, with sources
Palm, face, eyes, moles, body marks and feet - from the Sanskrit texts at chapter and verse, kept strictly apart from the Western tradition of Cheiro and Benham. You mark what you can see; about what you have not looked at, this app says nothing.
283
rules from a named Sanskrit text
277 from verse, 6 from a critical edition's diagrams or apparatus. Each states its chapter, verse and edition.
94
rules from Cheiro and Benham
Western chiromancy of about 1900. From no Sanskrit text - though this is precisely the material the market sells as Indian.
14
rules with no source located
Current practice for which no text could be found. Kept rather than dropped: a catalogue that quietly omits them looks complete when it is not.
The three tallies stand on their own scales and are not combined. There is no authenticity percentage here: adding tiers together would be an arithmetic no source performs.
Each was searched for verse by verse in Bṛhat Saṁhitā chs. 68–70, the Garuḍa Purāṇa (Dutt, LXIII–LXV), Agni Purāṇa 243, the whole Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna Pāṇilekhā, Sāmudrikatilaka 1.143 and 1.152–156, and Hastasañjīvana 3.2.80–82 and 1.3.88–91. They are not there. They are Cheiro's mensal, cerebral, marriage, Apollo and hepatica lines, and they appear on this page under his name, at his tier, with no source chip.
The same is true of the graha-named mounts. There is no parvata of the palm anywhere in the texts read here, and no graha is assigned to any region of the hand. The mounts are Benham's system, refined from Desbarrolles and d'Arpentigny - and both men disown the astrological reading in their own words, printed further down this page.
Read the Western tierNone of these sources licenses reading a hand from an image, and the engine takes observations rather than pictures. You look at your own hand, face or foot and give one of three answers: present, absent, or looked-at-and-could-not-tell. A rule you say nothing about stays undetermined - not absent. That distinction is what the whole corpus is built on.
And this is a catalogue you read, not a verdict you receive. Every statement below is phrased as what the chapter says, never as what will happen to you. Strī-lakṣaṇa character, chastity and widowhood phala, sex-of-child correlations and every medical outcome are recorded as covered and never transcribed - a decision, not a gap.
Your marks stay in this browser. Rule ids are sent to have them evaluated - no name, no birth details, no image - and the route stores nothing.
0
rules you have answered
Present, absent, or looked-at-and-could-not-tell. All three count as an answer.
391
rules undetermined, of 391
Nothing is asserted about these. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent, and that rule governs the whole corpus.
You have marked nothing yet, so every rule in the corpus stands undetermined. Answer 'What do you see?' on any rule below and it will appear here.
Read out of six Sanskrit texts, at chapter and verse: Bṛhat Saṁhitā chs. 68 and 70, Garuḍa Purāṇa Pūrva-khaṇḍa LXIII–LXV, the Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna's Pāṇilekhā chapter in Zysk's 2025 critical edition, Sāmudrikatilaka, Hastasañjīvana and Agni Purāṇa 243. Note what is NOT here: the corpus has no heart, head, marriage, sun or health line, and no mounts.
It does have a longevity line - the āyu-rekhā - and every early witness puts it at the TOP transverse crease, running from below the little finger toward the base of the forefinger. That is anatomically the crease Cheiro calls the heart line. The curve around the ball of the thumb that modern apps label the life line is a different crease with a different name in this corpus.
Every rule in this block comes from a named Sanskrit text at chapter and verse, with the edition stated. Press the Source chip to see the text, the translator and what the licence permits.
A figure shaped like the vajrāyudha - the thunderbolt - formed by the palm's lines.
What the text says
Riches. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees at ch. LXV, which makes this the corpus's firmest figure.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a fish-tail.
What the text says
A learned person. The Garuḍa Purāṇa's column reads 'intellect' for the same figure.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a conch, an umbrella, an elephant, or a lotus - the royal emblems, taken together by the verse.
What the text says
A king. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees, reading 'royalty'.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a palanquin or other vehicle.
What the text says
A king. Dutt's Garuḍa Purāṇa carries the same figure as 'vehicle' with the same royal phala.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a horse.
What the text says
A king. Single-witness: the Garuḍa Purāṇa's figure list has no horse at all, so this row has no second column.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a pot or pitcher, a lotus-stalk, a flag, or a goad.
What the text says
Guardian of a treasury. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads the same figures as possession of GEMS - a custodian in one text, an owner in the other. Both ship.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The same vessel-and-emblem figures the Bṛhat Saṁhitā reads at 68.45-49.
What the text says
Possession of gems - not custody of another's treasury.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Lines twisted together like a rope.
What the text says
Riches. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads the same formation as the possession of CATTLE - the two texts name two different kinds of wealth for one figure.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Lines twisted together like a rope.
What the text says
The possession of kine.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Lines triangular in shape.
What the text says
Riches. This is the corpus's liveliest divergence and it is rendered, not resolved: where Iyer reads a triangle here, the in-copyright 1946 edition reads a svastika and gives lordship, and the independent Purāṇic witness has a svastika giving royalty - so the second text sides against Iyer's figure in this slot. The 1946 wording is deliberately not quoted anywhere in this file.
“if the lines be triangular in shape, the person will be rich”
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a svastika on the palm.
What the text says
Royalty. Iyer's ch. 68 figure list omits the svastika altogether; his ch. 70 women's list has 'a cross' [CC-11c]. So the Purāṇa is the strongest witness for this figure, and the research's parenthesis '(Iyer omits svastika)' understates what is actually there.
“that of Swasthika indicates royalty”
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a discus, a sword, an axe, a club, a spear, or a bow.
What the text says
A commander of armies.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The same weapon figures, with the tomara (the iron club or javelin) added to the list.
What the text says
These are said to be a king's hands - the mark of the ruler himself, where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā gives the commander who serves him. A one-rank difference, and it is real.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a mortar.
What the text says
One who performs fire-sacrifices. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees, reading 'celebrates sacrifices'.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a crocodile, a flag, or a cow-shed.
What the text says
Very rich. Single-witness: the Garuḍa Purāṇa's list carries none of these three.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a vedi - a sacrificial altar - specifically at the ROOT OF THE THUMB. The position is part of the rule, not decoration.
What the text says
One who performs sacrificial rites. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads the same figure as the mark of an Agnihotrī - the two texts agree closely here.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A figure shaped like a tank, a temple, or a triangle. Note that a triangular figure appears twice in Iyer's chapter with two different results - riches at 68.46, charity here - and this module renders both readings rather than reconciling them.
What the text says
Acts of charity. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads 'righteousness' for the same group.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
On a woman's palms OR SOLES, any of the twenty-three figures the verse names: pitcher, seat, horse, elephant, chariot, bilva, sacrificial post, arrow, garland, ear-ring, chowry, goad, barley, mountain, banner, arch, fish, a cross, altar, fan, conch, umbrella, lotus. Iyer prints twenty-three, not twenty-four, and the seventeenth figure is 'a cross' in his English - not a svastika [CC-11c].
What the text says
She becomes a queen. This verse is also the corpus's clearest statement that the sāmudrika figures are read on the sole as well as the palm - the hand is not a special organ here.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Two fish-shaped marks in the middle of the palm.
What the text says
He will daily feed many people.
“will daily feed many people”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Cheiro (W. J. Warner, d. 1936), William Benham (d. 1938), d'Arpentigny (d. 1865) in Heron-Allen's translation, and Katharine St. Hill (1893). Public domain, quotable - and Victorian European, not Indian. Most of what is sold as 'Hast Samudrika Shastra' is this material under a Sanskrit-sounding name. Nothing in this block carries a source chip, and nothing in it may.
It is the obvious question, and the answer does not rest on silence. No Sanskrit text read for this module has a parvata of the palm at all - and the two men who standardised the mounts both disown the astrological link in print.
The mounts are found to carry the names of planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Apollo or the Sun, Mercury, Mars, the Moon, Venus.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. I
What the text says
The man who standardised the system says the names are mnemonics. That single sentence settles the question this module was commissioned to answer: there is no astrological reading of a mount to be recovered, because the system's own author says the names carry none.
“The names which appear on the Mounts are not used in any astrological sense, but because they have been so long in use that the mention of each name instinctively brings to mind certain attributes. I use these names for I have found them a great help to the memory of the student, though any other names would do as well.”
A reader proposes to carry the mount names over into astrology - to read the Mount of Venus against the planet Venus.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: Cheiro (W. J. Warner), Language of the Hand, 1st edn., 1897
Passage: Language of the Hand (1897), on the use of the old-time names
What the text says
Cheiro declines the link for his own system, while conceding a connection may exist. Two points follow. It is a second independent Western disclaimer, from the author usually cast as the fusion's villain - and it shows that Astrological Palmistry was a named current in 1890s London, i.e. a Victorian European one, not an Indian inheritance.
“As regards the use by cheiromants of the old-time names, such as the Mount of Venus, Mars, etc., I must here state that I do not use these names in any sense in relation to what is known as Astrological Palmistry. I do not for one moment deny that there may be a connection - and a very great one - between the two; but I do not think it necessary to consider it in conjunction with this study of the hand.”
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
The mounts are found to carry the names of planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Apollo or the Sun, Mercury, Mars, the Moon, Venus.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. I
What the text says
The man who standardised the system says the names are mnemonics. That single sentence settles the question this module was commissioned to answer: there is no astrological reading of a mount to be recovered, because the system's own author says the names carry none.
“The names which appear on the Mounts are not used in any astrological sense, but because they have been so long in use that the mention of each name instinctively brings to mind certain attributes. I use these names for I have found them a great help to the memory of the student, though any other names would do as well.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A reader proposes to carry the mount names over into astrology - to read the Mount of Venus against the planet Venus.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: Cheiro (W. J. Warner), Language of the Hand, 1st edn., 1897
Passage: Language of the Hand (1897), on the use of the old-time names
What the text says
Cheiro declines the link for his own system, while conceding a connection may exist. Two points follow. It is a second independent Western disclaimer, from the author usually cast as the fusion's villain - and it shows that Astrological Palmistry was a named current in 1890s London, i.e. a Victorian European one, not an Indian inheritance.
“As regards the use by cheiromants of the old-time names, such as the Mount of Venus, Mars, etc., I must here state that I do not use these names in any sense in relation to what is known as Astrological Palmistry. I do not for one moment deny that there may be a connection - and a very great one - between the two; but I do not think it necessary to consider it in conjunction with this study of the hand.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The mount at the base of the ring finger is met under two different names, Apollo and the Sun.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing); Cheiro, Language of the Hand, 1897; Katharine St. Hill, The Grammar of Palmistry, London 1893
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXI (Mount of Apollo)
What the text says
They are one name, not two systems. Benham licenses the synonym himself; Cheiro's own text overwhelmingly prefers the Sun; St. Hill uses Apollo throughout. So calling it Sūrya or Ravi in Hindi is a plain translation of a name the Western tradition already uses - it is NOT, on its own, evidence of a manufactured Indian pedigree.
What remains refused is the cross-reading of the mount against the graha, which no author licenses.
“This Mount, from its brilliancy, has also been called the Mount of the Sun, and the Line of Apollo … has been called the Line of the Sun, or of Brilliancy.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The cushion of flesh at the base of the first (index) finger is developed.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XIX (Mount of Jupiter)
What the text says
Ambition, leadership, religion and self-assertion.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The cushion at the base of the second (middle) finger is developed.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XX (Mount of Saturn)
What the text says
Soberness, prudence and gravity. Benham makes this mount the balance of the hand - the check on whatever the other mounts push toward.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The cushion at the base of the third (ring) finger is developed.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXI (Mount of Apollo)
What the text says
Art, brilliance and celebrity - the faculty of being seen doing a thing well.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The cushion at the base of the fourth (little) finger is developed.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXII (Mount of Mercury)
What the text says
Commerce, science, medicine and oratory. Benham presses the type's bad side harder than any other in the book - the same quickness turned to shrewdness and deceit - and a corpus that prints only the flattering half misrepresents him.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The percussion of the palm above the head line is full.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXIII (Mount of Mars)
What the text says
Resistance, resignation and passive courage - the power to endure rather than to attack. Mars is three regions in Benham, not one, and this is the first of them.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The region under the beginning of the life line and above the Mount of Venus is full.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXIII (Mount of Mars)
What the text says
Aggression - the active side of the Martian nature, as against Upper Mars's endurance.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The centre of the palm - the Plain of Mars - is judged for its depth and hardness.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXIII (Mount of Mars)
What the text says
Temper and drive. Benham records that the earlier tradition rated this region above both Mars mounts, which is worth carrying because modern summaries drop the Plain entirely.
“in the earlier history of Palmistry the Plain of Mars was considered to be the principal part of the Martian development”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The percussion below Upper Mars, judged twice - once by the outward bulge seen from the side, once by the pad felt on the inner face of the palm.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXIV (Mount of the Moon)
What the text says
Imagination. The double judgement is Benham's own requirement and it is the part usually dropped: a mount that bulges outward without an inner pad, or the reverse, is not the same mount.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The ball at the base of the thumb, enclosed by the line of life.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XXV (Mount of Venus)
What the text says
Love, music, the family affections - and, in Benham's frame, the physical vitality that feeds them. It is the largest of the mounts, which is why it is the one where he states the three-state grading in full.
“has the largest prominence shown by any of the Mounts”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A mount is graded against the rest of the hand: excessive (out of proportion, highly coloured, deeply grilled), normal (in proportion with the rest of the hand), or deficient.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First chs. XVIII, XXV
What the text says
The grading is three-state and never two. An excessive mount is not a stronger good - Benham reads excess as the type turned against itself, and it is the state most often mis-sold as strength.
“an absence of any development … a flat and flabby appearance”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The skin ridges on a mount are traced to the small triangle where they meet; its centre is the mount's apex.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XVIII (how the Mounts are judged)
What the text says
The apex, not the fleshiest point, is where a mount is located and from which displacement is measured. Benham's own term for the figure is the capillary triangle; 'triradius' is twentieth-century dermatoglyphics and must not be put in his mouth.
“It is the centre of the capillary triangle which is its apex.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A mount's apex is pulled toward a neighbouring mount rather than sitting at its centre.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XVIII (how the Mounts are judged)
What the text says
The mount it leans toward is the stronger of the two, and the leaning mount gives up PART of its type to it - part, not most.
The version repeated everywhere else, in which the leaning mount surrenders most of what it is, is not Benham's rule at all: it comes from a 1960 Bombay book that is still in copyright, and it is materially stronger than the source it is credited to.
“If the apex is pulled toward another Mount, it allows that the Mount toward which it leans is the stronger, and it gives up part of its type to the stronger Mount.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A star, a triangle, a circle, a single vertical line, a square or a trident is found on a mount.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XVIII (how the Mounts are judged)
What the text says
These are Benham's strengthening signs. They intensify whatever the mount already is; on an excessive mount that is not a benefit, which is why the sign is read after the grading and never before it.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A cross-bar, a cross, an island, a dot or a grille is found on a mount.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900 (1912 printing)
Passage: The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading (1900), Part First ch. XVIII (how the Mounts are judged)
What the text says
Benham's signs of defect. Under Cheiro's method rule, a single one of them settles nothing on its own - it must be repeated elsewhere in the hand before it is stated as a finding.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Face, eyes, moles, marks on the body, and the feet - from Bṛhat Saṁhitā ch. 68 (the twelve heads and the rāja-lakṣaṇa census), Garuḍa Purāṇa LXV, Bṛhat Jātaka V, and two later compendia. This is a catalogue you read, not a verdict you receive: every statement below is phrased as what the chapter says, and none of it is phrased as what will happen to you.
Strī-lakṣaṇa character, chastity and widowhood phala, sex-of-child correlations and every medical outcome are recorded as covered and never transcribed.
Every rule in this block comes from a named Sanskrit text at chapter and verse, with the edition stated. Press the Source chip to see the text, the translator and what the licence permits.
One hair grows from each pore over the body.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Two hairs grow from each pore.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of one learned and scrupulous in Vedic duty.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Three or more hairs grow from each pore. The verse extends the same remarks to the hair of the head.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty and of grief. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees on this row.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Where a reader looks for a person's chāyā - the lustre the chapter calls mṛja, head II of its twelve.
What the text says
The chapter locates it in the body itself, not around it: it is discernible in shining teeth, skin, nails and hair. Nothing in this corpus describes a field or an energy body.
“discernible in shining teeth, skin, nails and hair”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Whether a complexion may be assigned to the Sun, Viṣṇu, Indra, Yama or the Moon, rather than to one of the five elements the chapter has just described.
What the text says
Varāhamihira records that some writers do exactly that and describe each in detail - and then declines to give their scheme. This module declines with him: the five-fold planetary complexion table circulating elsewhere has no text behind it here.
“Some writers treat of five more complexions caused by the Sun, Viṣṇu, Indra, Yama and the Moon, and they have described in detail the properties of each”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A malefic occupies the sign that represents a part of the body in the rising-drekkāṇa division of stanza 24.
What the text says
A wound or a scar on that part.
“Wounds will occur in those parts of body the signs representing which are occupied by malefic planets”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
That planet - malefic or benefic - is in its own sign, its own navāṁśa, a fixed sign, or a fixed navāṁśa.
What the text says
The wound or the mole has existed from birth.
“if such malefic or benefic planets be in their own signs or Navāṁśas or in fixed signs or fixed Navāṁśas, the wound or the mole will exist from birth”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
That planet is otherwise placed.
What the text says
The mark appears at a future time - in the daśā of that planet. The daśā limb is Iyer's own note on the stanza, and is cited as the note, not as the verse.
“otherwise they will appear at a future time”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A benefic occupies the sign representing a part of the body.
What the text says
There will be no wound on that part.
“There will be no wound in those parts of the body which are represented by signs occupied by the benefic planets.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Three planets, benefic or malefic, occupy one sign. This clause uses the stanza-24 map.
What the text says
A wound or a mole on the part that sign represents, and the verse says so without qualification. The emphasis is flagged: it is in the printed English, but whether it renders the verse or the translator is unsettled.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A malefic occupies the 6th house, reckoned from the rising sign.
What the text says
A wound in the hip. The hip is where the SIXTH house falls in the twelve-fold head-down division of V.23 note (c) - not in the drekkāṇa map of stanza 24, which this one clause does not use.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Benefics occupy the 6th house.
What the text says
Only a crowded growth of hair on the part - no wound and no mole.
“only a crowded growth of hair”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The planet in the 6th is in its own sign or navāṁśa, or in a fixed sign or navāṁśa.
What the text says
That mark too has existed from birth.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The malefic responsible for the wound is Saturn.
What the text says
The text names the cause as a stone, or the wind.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The malefic responsible is Mars.
What the text says
The text names the cause as fire, a weapon, or poison.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The malefic responsible is Mercury acting as a malefic - conjoined a malefic.
What the text says
The text names the cause as earth.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The malefic responsible is the Sun.
What the text says
The text names the cause as wood, or quadrupeds.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The malefic responsible is the waning Moon.
What the text says
The text names the cause as horned animals, or water animals.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
At the moment an omen occurs, malefics occupy the 6th house and are aspected by other malefics.
What the text says
The person concerned will receive a wound on the part of the body that sixth house corresponds to. This is the horary twin of the natal rule above, and it is the verse in which Varāhamihira points at his own Jātaka for the rest. Iyer's bracketed pointer to Bṛhat Jātaka V.24–25 is the translator's editorial note; the sentence "in my Jātaka" is the author's.
“If at the time of occurrence of an omen malefic planets occupy the sixth house and be aspected at the same time by other malefic planets, the person concerned will receive a wound in the part of body which corresponds to such sixth house. All that has been said by me regarding wounds, moles and the like in my Jātaka applies here also.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
One of the five planets from Mars to Saturn is powerful AND occupies its own house, its exaltation sign, OR a kendra - the print's condition is a disjunction of three, not a conjunction of two.
What the text says
One of the five Mahāpuruṣas - eminent men - is born. On this reading the yoga fires vastly more often than on the conjunctive definition the engine currently computes, which is a real difference and is rendered as one rather than resolved.
“Five Mahapurushas or eminent men will be born when the five planets from Mars to Saturn are powerful and occupy their houses, exaltation signs or the Kendra houses.”
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The chart produces the Bhadra type, of Mercury.
What the text says
The chapter holds that such a person bears, on the hands and feet, the figures of a plough, a pestle, a club, a conch-shell, a discus, an elephant, a shark, a lotus and a chariot - nine, in the print. The ten-member list in circulation adds a sword, which the public-domain edition does not have.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The chart produces the Śaśa type, of Saturn.
What the text says
The chapter holds that such a person bears, on the hands and feet, the figures of a target, a sword, a lyre, a cot, a garland, a drum and a trident - and, alone among the five types, vertical lines as well. Iyer's 69.22 DOES print a stringed instrument: it reads 'lyre'.
Spec 56's X1 renders the print as 'no lute', which is right about the web text's word and wrong about the object, and this row had followed X1 into dropping the instrument altogether - see `mahapurusha-marks.ts`, correction 2, which holds the print-verified list.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The chart produces the Rucaka type, of Mars.
What the text says
The chapter holds that such a person bears the figures of a club, a lyre, a bull, a bow, a vajrāyudha, a spear, THE MOON and a trident. The circulating list prints an "Indra-hall" in the moon's place; the public-domain edition reads the moon.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
None of the five types is produced. The print defines the class at 69.4 - 'if the Sun or the Moon be not powerful at the time of birth, the person is known as Saṅkīrṇapuruṣa' - and 69.6 then divides it into five sorts, according as the most powerful planet occupies an inimical sign, a depression sign or a position beyond exaltation, or is aspected by a benefic or a malefic.
What the text says
The chapter's own consolation: such people will not become kings, but will enjoy ease and comfort in the daśā of the most powerful planet.
“The Sankirnapurushas will not become kings, but will enjoy ease and comfort in the Dasa period of the most powerful planet.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The census itself - how many parts the chapter requires in each quality.
What the text says
Three places broad, three things deep or high, six places high, four small, seven red, five long and five soft. The members follow in 68.85–88.
“To be a king three places must be broad, three things must be deep or high, six places high, four small, seven red, five long and five soft.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The three broad places: the breast, the forehead and the face.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. All three witnesses name the same three here - the one row on which they fully agree.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The three deep or high things: the navel, the voice and the strength.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. Note that two of the three are not physical at all - a shape the other two witnesses share while naming a different third member.
Says something incompatible with 2
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The six high or raised places: the breast, the arm-pit, the nails, the nose, the face and the nape of the neck.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. This column is dominated by the face and the torso; the Garuḍa Purāṇa's six are dominated by the sense organs instead, which is a structural divergence rather than a scribal one.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The four short places: the generative organ, the back, the neck and the shanks.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. The Garuḍa Purāṇa names the same four in a different order; the Agni Purāṇa's list, in the only edition this module may quote, could not be checked and is not encoded.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The seven red places: the corners of the eyes, the soles, the palms, the corners of the mouth, the lower lip, the upper lip and the tongue.
What the text says
A member of the royal census, and the verse that puts the SOLES among the seven - which is why the feet carry so much weight in this corpus.
Says something incompatible with 2
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The five soft or fine things: the teeth, the fingers, the hair of the head, the skin and the nails.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. The Garuḍa Purāṇa gives the same five, reading the finger row as the knots of the fingers.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The five long things: the mouth, the eyes, the arms, the nose and the part between the nipples.
What the text says
A member of the royal census. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads the teeth where this list reads the mouth.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The three broad places: the forehead, the face and the chest.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. Identical to the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's three.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The three deep things: the navel, the voice and the understanding.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. Where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā puts STRENGTH as the third member, the Purāṇa puts UNDERSTANDING - one of the two genuine structural divergences in this device.
Says something incompatible with 2
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The six high places: the eye, the side, the tooth, the nose, the mouth and the back of the neck.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. Four of these six are sense organs; the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's six are the breast, arm-pit, nails, nose, face and nape.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The four short places: the shank, the neck, the generative organ and the back.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. The same four the Bṛhat Saṁhitā names.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The seven red places: the palms, the corners of the mouth, the nails, the corners of the eyes, the feet, the tongue and the lips.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. It counts the NAILS among the seven and the two lips as one member, where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā counts the lips separately and leaves the nails out.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The five soft things: the teeth, the knots of the fingers, the nails, the hairs and the skin.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. Effectively the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's five.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The five long things: the distance between the breasts, the arms, the teeth, the eyes and the nose.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. It reads the TEETH where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā reads the mouth.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Trivistīrṇa - the three broad: the chest, the forehead and the face.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census, and the row on which all three witnesses agree. The Agni Purāṇa organises the whole device as a vocabulary of numbered terms - ekādhika, dviśukla, trigambhīra, trivistīrṇa and onward through fours, fives, sixes, sevens and beyond - each glossed in situ, which makes it the most systematic of the three, if also the one this module could read least of.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Trigambhīra - the three deep: patience, the ears and the umbilicus.
What the text says
A member of the Purāṇa's royal census. Its third member is non-physical, exactly as the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's strength and the Garuḍa Purāṇa's understanding are - so on this row the three texts AGREE in structure and differ only in which quality they name.
The widely copied claim that the Agni Purāṇa gives only two members here is an artefact of a modern translation, and correcting it removes a disagreement this app would otherwise have rendered between two Englishmen rather than two traditions.
“The term Trigambhira signifies the depth of one's patience, ears and the umbilicus.”
Says something incompatible with 2
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Saptasnigdha - the seven specific parts of the body that are glossy. Which seven, this module has not read: the members are in the chapter, and the pass that reached the public-domain edition recorded the term without enumerating them.
What the text says
A seven, in a chapter that has one - but a seven of a DIFFERENT QUALITY from the other two witnesses', which count seven RED parts. That is a real divergence and a better one than the claim it replaces, namely that the Agni Purāṇa has no seven at all.
“the seven specific parts of whose body are glossy”
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A hair-whorl (āvarta) on the hand, turning to the right.
What the text says
Read as dharmya - righteous.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A hair-whorl (āvarta) on the hand, turning to the left.
What the text says
Read as inauspicious.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
One of the ten body regions of this stanza is defective - feet and ankles, shanks and knees, thighs and generative organ, loins and navel, belly, breast and bosoms, shoulders, neck and lips, eyes and brows, forehead and head.
What the text says
Misery during the daśā that region represents. The ten regions divide a maximum life of 120 years into twelve-year periods from birth, so a defect in the thighs is read against the ages 24 to 36 - the arithmetic is Iyer's own note on the stanza. The 1916 compendium transmits the identical device under daśā-phala-vicāre varṣa-jñānam, which is what makes it a transmitted rule rather than a translator's artefact.
“The (1) feet and ankles, (2) the shanks and knees, (3) the thighs and genital organ, (4) the loins and the navel, (5) the belly, (6) the breast and the bosoms, (7) the shoulders, (8) the neck and the lips, (9) the eyes and the brows, and (10) the forehead and the head represent the ten daśā periods beginning from birth; so that if a particular organ be defective, a person will suffer miseries in the daśā period represented by it.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
That region is perfect and beautiful.
What the text says
Happiness during the period that region represents.
“If the organ be perfect and beautiful, he will be happy during such period.”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Two hairs grow from each pore.
What the text says
The Purāṇa puts TWO hairs at the top of the scale - kings, Srotiyas and the intelligent - and gives no one-hair reading at all, where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā reserves the top for one hair and gives two to the learned. Both texts agree that three means poverty.
“The kings, the Srotiyas and the intelligent have two hairs each. Persons, having three hairs, become poor”
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The nipples are not high.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of popularity. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees, reading it as great good luck.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Ten stanzas of the Bṛhat Saṁhitā, and a large block of the Garuḍa Purāṇa, read the genitals, the testicles, the semen and the stream of urine.
Recorded, not transcribed
The text has something to say here, and this app does not print it. That is a decision, not a gap: what is observed stays above, and what the text says follows it appears nowhere in this app.
Editor's note: Unaskable in a consumer product; no consented input exists.
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 70 states its method at v. 15 - the bad features are the reverse of the good - and then gives them anyway across the stanzas that follow.
Recorded, not transcribed
The text has something to say here, and this app does not print it. That is a decision, not a gap: what is observed stays above, and what the text says follows it appears nowhere in this app.
Editor's note: §15 strī-lakṣaṇa chastity and widowhood class, plus the death of the husband's kin - which also names living third parties.
The chapter states a general principle linking bodily deformity to character.
Recorded, not transcribed
The text has something to say here, and this app does not print it. That is a decision, not a gap: what is observed stays above, and what the text says follows it appears nowhere in this app.
Editor's note: A disability slur stated as a general principle. Do not paraphrase, do not frame, do not render.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
The reading in general modern use: the planet must be in its own OR exaltation sign AND that sign must be a kendra - the two conditions together.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
This is the definition the engine computes and the one every modern handbook prints, and it is NOT what the public-domain print of Bṛhat Saṁhitā 69.1 says. No locus was located for it in the editions read for this module, so it is recorded without a citation rather than attributed to a verse that reads otherwise.
Says something incompatible with 1
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
Bṛhat Jātaka V.24 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, 1885)
Take the drekkāṇa of the lagna (its longitude mod 30° - 0–10, 10–20 or 20–30) and read that column; the rows are whole-sign houses from the lagna. The table is mirror-symmetric about the 1st/7th axis: 2↔12, 3↔11, 4↔10, 5↔9 and 6↔8 are the same organ, right and left. This app does not compute it from anybody's chart - it is the table the verse reads against, printed so you can.
| House | 1st drekkāṇa | 2nd drekkāṇa | 3rd drekkāṇa |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Head | Neck | Lower abdomen |
| 2 | Right eye | Right arm | Generative organ |
| 3 | Right ear | Right hand | Right testicle |
| 4 | Right nostril | Right side | Right thigh |
| 5 | Right temple | Right breast | Right knee |
| 6 | Right cheek | Right side of the belly | Right ankle |
| 7 | Mouth | The navel | The feet |
| 8 | Left cheek | Left side of the belly | Left ankle |
| 9 | Left temple | Left breast | Left knee |
| 10 | Left nostril | Left side | Left thigh |
| 11 | Left ear | Left hand | Left testicle |
| 12 | Left eye | Left arm | Anus |
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 70.24 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
The arithmetic is Iyer's own note: a hundred and twenty years at most, twelve years to a band. All ten limbs sit in stanza 24 alone - the widely-quoted '70.24–26' is another edition's numbering, and there is no 70.25 or 70.26 in this print.
| Band | Ages | Limb |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0–12 | The feet and ankles |
| 2 | 12–24 | The shanks and knees |
| 3 | 24–36 | The thighs and the generative organ |
| 4 | 36–48 | The loins and the navel |
| 5 | 48–60 | The belly |
| 6 | 60–72 | The breast and bosoms |
| 7 | 72–84 | The shoulders |
| 8 | 84–96 | The neck and lips |
| 9 | 96–108 | The eyes and brows |
| 10 | 108–120 | The forehead and the head |
This is the only place in the corpus where the chart and the body meet. The five Mahāpuruṣa yogas are computed from a chart; ch. 69 gives those same five types a set of hand-and-sole line figures. They are two independent descriptions, and they are put side by side for one purpose: so you can check one against the other yourself.
Ch. 69 gives hand-and-sole figures to four of the five types. Those lists name 27 distinct figures between them, and 6 of those appear under more than one type. A figure therefore cannot identify a type: the chapter never made the sets disjoint. The table below is computed from the figure lists, not asserted.
| Figure | Claimed by |
|---|---|
| club | Bhadra (Mercury) · Rucaka (Mars) |
| conch-shell | Bhadra (Mercury) · Haṁsa (Jupiter) |
| garland | Śaśa (Saturn) · Haṁsa (Jupiter) |
| lotus | Bhadra (Mercury) · Haṁsa (Jupiter) |
| lyre | Śaśa (Saturn) · Rucaka (Mars) |
| trident | Śaśa (Saturn) · Rucaka (Mars) |
And if the sets were disjoint, the text still would not license the inference. The chapter attributes figures to a type; it nowhere reads the type back from the figures. The overlap only adds that here the mistake is not even available.
Bṛhat Saṁhitā ch. 69 gives palm-and-sole line figures to four of the five Mahāpuruṣa types. Mālavya is not one of them: his verses, 69.10–12, describe a face, arms, a country and a lifespan, and no lines at all. Nothing has been substituted for the missing verse.
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 69.10–12 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
Below is the verse it is tempting to fill it with. 69.33 makes the Jaghanya an attendant of the Mālavya puruṣa and 69.34 gives him line figures - but the Jaghanya is a Saṅkīrṇa attendant, not one of the five. It is printed as catalogue only: no observation is asked for it, because the app computes nothing that would identify an attendant type.
On the hands, the feet and the breast, lines forming the figures of a sword, a spear, a string or an axe.
What the text says
These are the figures of the Jaghanya, one of the five Saṅkīrṇa attendant types of 69.31 - said at 69.33 to serve under the Mālavya puruṣa. It is NOT one of the five Mahāpuruṣas, the app computes nothing that would identify it, and it is recorded only to keep it out of the Mālavya slot it sits next to.
Note also that it is the chapter's only figure rule to read the breast as well as the hands and feet.
“the lines in his hand, feet and breast will be of the shape of a sword, a spear, a string or an axe.”
4 verses are encoded twice in this corpus, from opposite directions: once conditioned on the CHART ("the chart produces the Bhadra type, so these figures follow") and once conditioned on the OBSERVATION ("these are the figures you look for"). Both are the same verse in the same edition, so presenting them as a disagreement between sources would be false. They are listed here so that meeting both readings in different parts of this page is not confusing.
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 69.17 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
cl-mahapurusha-bhadra-marks · cl-bs-69-17-bhadra-figures
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 69.22 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
cl-mahapurusha-shasha-marks · cl-bs-69-22-sasa-figures
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 69.29 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
cl-mahapurusha-rucaka-marks · cl-bs-69-29-ruchaka-figures
Bṛhat Saṁhitā 70.10 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
cl-bs70-10-figures-queen · cl-foot-figures-bs70
About the sources: where the source's own words appear, they are from a public-domain edition and the translator is named on screen - N. Chidambaram Iyer for the Bṛhat Saṁhitā and Bṛhat Jātaka, M. N. Dutt for the Garuḍa Purāṇa, and the authors' own editions on the Western side. Where an edition may not be quoted, the wording here is the app's own prose instead. For educational purposes; nothing on this page is a medical claim of any kind.