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.
A single unfavourable mark is found on one line and nowhere else.
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, London: Nichols & Co., 1900
Passage: Language of the Hand (1900), on the method of reading
What the text says
Cheiro forbids reading it as decisive. One sign shows a tendency only; the reading hardens into a statement about a life only when other lines repeat it.
“In reading the hand, no single evil mark must be accepted as decisive… A single sign in itself only shows the tendency; when, however, the sign is repeated by other lines, the danger is then a certainty.”
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.
Both hands are placed side by side and compared.
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, London: Nichols & Co., 1900
Passage: Language of the Hand (1900), on the right and left hands
What the text says
Cheiro reads the left for the natural character a person is born with and the right for training, experience and surroundings; in forecasting he depends on the development of the lines in the right hand. Note that this is nature against nurture - it is NOT the Indian rule of a man's right hand and a woman's left, which answers a different question and must not be blended with it.
“The left is the hand we are born with; the right is the hand we make.”
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 subject is left-handed.
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, London: Nichols & Co., 1900
Passage: Language of the Hand (1900), on the right and left hands
What the text says
The rule reverses. Cheiro supplies the exception the traditional formulations lack, and it is the one clause that keeps his which-hand rule from being mechanical.
“left-handed people have the lines more clearly marked on the left hand, and vice versa”
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 take the left hand because it is the hand nearest to the heart.
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, London: Nichols & Co., 1900
Passage: Language of the Hand (1900), on the right and left hands
What the text says
Cheiro rejects it outright as one of the many superstitions which degraded the science in the middle ages. Recorded because the reason is still repeated, and because it shows the tradition correcting itself in public domain print.
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 hand as a whole is assigned to one of d'Arpentigny's seven classes.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I 'The Classification of Hands', ¶83
What the text says
Note that the labels modern books use - Elementary, Spatulate, Conic, Square, Philosophic, Psychic, Mixed - are only the SECOND half of each of d'Arpentigny's pairs. His own primary names are functional, and they carry the reading: Necessary, Artistic, Useful. Ship the pairs.
“Hands may be divided into seven classes or types … The Elementary, or Large-palmed hand. The Necessary, or Spatulated hand. The Artistic, or Conical hand. The Useful, or Squared hand. The Philosophic, or Knotted hand. The Psychic, or Pointed hand. The Mixed hand.”
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 large heavy palm with short thick fingers and little modelling - the Elementary, or Large-palmed hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Elementary type
What the text says
d'Arpentigny's first class, named for what it lacks in modelling rather than for what it does. The nineteenth-century readings attached to it are freighted with the period's class and national characterology and are not carried here.
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.
Finger-tips broadening at the end like a spatula - the Necessary, or Spatulated hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Necessary type
What the text says
The hand of action and of use. d'Arpentigny's own primary name is the Necessary hand: movement, enterprise, and a preference for what must be done over what may be contemplated.
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.
Smooth fingers tapering to conical tips - the Artistic, or Conical hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Artistic type
What the text says
Impression before analysis: the type takes a thing whole, and is moved by form and feeling before it is convinced by argument.
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.
Squared finger-tips and a square palm - the Useful, or Squared hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Useful type
What the text says
Order, method and the practical. d'Arpentigny's primary name is the Useful hand, and the name is the reading.
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.
Long fingers with developed joints - the Philosophic, or Knotted hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Philosophic type
What the text says
Analysis, deduction and the habit of stopping at each step of a thing. The knots are the type: they are where the hand's judgement is said to pause.
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 slender hand with long smooth fingers and pointed tips - the Psychic, or Pointed hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Psychic type
What the text says
The idealising type - drawn to beauty and to the unseen, and rated by d'Arpentigny himself as the least fitted to the practical management of a life.
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 fingers do not agree with one another - one tip square, another conical, another spatulate. The Mixed hand.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: C. S. d'Arpentigny, La Chirognomonie, Paris 1843; tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section I, ¶83 and the Mixed type
What the text says
Versatility, and d'Arpentigny's own escape clause: the seventh class exists because the first six do not fit most hands. That admission is part of the doctrine and should be shown with it.
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 seven-fold classification is proposed as the frame for reading a hand at all.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: Adolphe Desbarrolles, Les Mystères de la Main, Paris 1859 (15th edn. p. 176), printed in Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886, p. 95 n.103
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), p. 95 n.103
What the text says
Desbarrolles - one of the three founding Western authorities, and Benham's own antecedent - rejects the whole classification, and d'Arpentigny's English translator prints the rejection in his own edition. The Western tradition is not unanimous that hand types exist as types, and the app must not present it as though it were.
“We will not follow M. d'Arpentigny in his classification, because we consider it to be useless. Hands may resemble one another, but nature never repeats herself”
Says something incompatible with 8
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 skin of the back of the hand is judged fine and thin, or coarse and thick, to the touch.
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. IV (texture of the skin)
What the text says
Benham makes texture the register of refinement, and grades it first because it qualifies everything read afterwards: the same mount, the same line, reads differently on a fine skin and on a coarse one.
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 hand is pressed to judge its consistency - flabby, soft, elastic or hard.
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. V (consistency)
What the text says
Benham reads consistency as the amount of energy behind everything else in the hand: a flabby hand spends little of what its mounts promise, an elastic one spends it steadily, a hard one spends it whether or not it is wanted.
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 hand is bent back to judge how freely the fingers and the palm yield.
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. VI (flexibility)
What the text says
Flexibility is read as the mind's adaptability - how readily the subject takes a new impression - and Benham grades it as an axis, with a too-flexible hand no better placed than a rigid one.
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.
Texture, consistency, flexibility, the mounts, the fingers, the thumb and the lines have each been judged separately.
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. X (the hand as a whole)
What the text says
Benham's whole-hand chapter forbids stopping there. Every element qualifies every other, and a reading assembled by listing them one after another is not his method. Taken with Cheiro's rule that no single mark is decisive, this is the discipline the two authorities agree on - and it is also why no composite hand score may be computed: neither of them weights one element against another.
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.
Hair on the back of the hands is judged for quantity and colour.
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. IX (hair on the hands)
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: Racial characterology plus a physiological claim about the blood. Public domain and refused anyway, with the nail diagnostics - the neutral form and texture material from chs. IV–VI and X ships in its place.
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.
The chin is very small and long.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 chin is covered with flesh.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 lower lip is red and straight.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark. Read rājā as the top of a 6th-century fortune scale, which is how the text uses it, not as a prediction of monarchy.
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 lower lip is small.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 lips are split, cut, of a bad colour, or dry.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 teeth are glossy, close-set, sharp and regular.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of a happy life.
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 tongue is red, long, smooth and even.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives in comfort.
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 tongue is white or black and dry. The verse extends the same remarks to the corners of the mouth.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 face is beautiful, slightly open-mouthed, clear, smooth and even.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark.
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 face is large.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of a happy life.
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 face is round.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a cheat.
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 face is long.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 face is oblong.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a cheat.
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 face is depressed or sunk.
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 childlessness verdict attached to a facial feature. The research file itself instructs that the 'sons' clause be dropped from the one mole rule that carries it; the same treatment is applied here rather than shipping it under a softer noun.
The face is very small.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a miser.
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 face is full and beautiful.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of a happy life.
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 facial hair is unsplit at the ends, soft, and bent.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of a happy life.
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 facial hair is red, not glossy, and scanty.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a thief.
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 ears are without flesh.
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 death prediction about the reader, drawn from a body feature. Not in §15's register, but unshippable as a personal reading in a consumer product.
The ears are shaped like a cup.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives in comfort.
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 ears are small.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a miser. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees almost word for word - "the misers have short ears".
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 ears taper to a point, like a cone.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark.
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 ears are covered with hair.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of long life.
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 ears are broad.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees - "persons, having big ears, become kings and rich men".
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 ears hang, and are fleshy.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives 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 cheeks are not sunk.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives in comfort.
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 cheeks are fleshy.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of one who becomes a minister.
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 nose is shaped like a parrot's beak.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives in comfort.
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 nose is dry.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of long life.
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 nose is long.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 nose is bent.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a thief.
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 nose is flat.
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 death verdict that attributes the death to a named class of third parties. BS 68.61 is on the research file's own withheld list for its neighbouring clauses.
The end of the nose is bent.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 end of the nose is bent towards the right.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of a wicked and gluttonous disposition.
“he will be wicked and gluttonous”
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 nose is straight and beautiful, with small nostrils.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 brows are high and not broad.
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: An early-death prediction about the reader, from an observed facial feature.
The brows are high and broad.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who lives in comfort.
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 brows are unequal.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 brows are bent like the young moon.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 brows are long and do not meet.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 brows appear broken.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 temples are high and broad.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 temples are sunk.
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 childlessness verdict, withheld on the same ground as cl-face-sunk. The poverty limb is inseparable from it in the verse, so the whole rule is withheld rather than half-rendered.
The forehead is uneven.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 forehead is shaped like the half-moon.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 forehead is like the pearl-oyster, and broad.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a preceptor.
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 muscles of the forehead are high and triangular.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of wealth.
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 forehead is high.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark.
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 forehead is narrow.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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 head is round.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who possesses many cows.
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 head is broad and round, like an umbrella.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark.
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 head is flat.
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: Names a living third party's death. The withheld register already excludes the death of the husband's kin on this exact ground; a parent is the same class.
The head is long.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of long life.
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 head is shaped like a pot.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of one fond of meditation. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads the same shape in the opposite direction - see the disagreement.
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 head is sunk.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as the mark of a great man.
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 hair of the head grows singly, and is glossy, black, curling, unsplit, soft and not over-abundant.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of great comfort, or of a king.
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 hair of the head grows in clumps, and is uneven, brown, thick, split, dull, short, over-curled and over-abundant.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty.
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.
There are three lines across the forehead.
What the text says
The chapter reads a life of a hundred years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa gives 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.
There are four lines across the forehead.
What the text says
The chapter reads ninety-five years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees.
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.
There is no line on the forehead.
What the text says
The chapter reads ninety years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees.
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 lines run near the hairline.
What the text says
The chapter reads eighty years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees.
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.
There are five lines across the forehead.
What the text says
The chapter reads seventy years. This is where the two witnesses part company - the Garuḍa Purāṇa reads five, six or seven lines as fifty years or more.
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 lines are of equal length.
What the text says
The chapter reads sixty years.
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 lines are many.
What the text says
The chapter reads fifty years.
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 lines are bent.
What the text says
The chapter reads forty years.
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 lines reach down and touch the brows.
What the text says
The chapter reads thirty years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa gives 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.
The lines bend towards the left.
What the text says
The chapter reads twenty years. The Garuḍa Purāṇa reads lines bending to the left as a mark of LONG life, and counts twenty of them - the flattest contradiction between the two witnesses anywhere in this corpus.
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.
There are five, six or seven lines across the forehead.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads fifty years or more, against the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's seventy for five lines and fifty for many.
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 forehead lines are dark blue.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads forty years. The Bṛhat Saṁhitā has no colour row here at all; it reaches forty years by the shape of the lines instead.
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.
There are twenty lines, bending towards the left.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as a mark of long life.
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 forehead is dry and does not perspire.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as inauspicious. The Bṛhat Saṁhitā has no perspiration rule at all; this is material the Purāṇa adds.
“A dry unperspiring fore-head is not auspicious”
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 forehead perspires sufficiently, and is rough.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as a mark of happiness.
“A sufficiently-perspiring and rough fore-head indicates happiness”
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 beard is tender, thin and beautiful.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as the mark of the happiest of men. The Bṛhat Saṁhitā has facial hair rules but no beard block; this is the Purāṇa's addition.
“The happiest of men… has tender, thin and beautiful beards.”
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 beard is thick, short and crimson-coloured.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as the mark of a thief.
“A thief has got thick, short and crimson-coloured beards.”
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 head is shaped like a pot.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads vile desire and poverty. The Bṛhat Saṁhitā reads the same shape as a fondness for meditation - a flat contradiction between two canonical witnesses, shown rather than settled.
“vile desire and poverty”
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 forehead is high, capacious, conch-shell-like and rugged.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads poverty - against the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's pearl-oyster forehead, which is the mark of a preceptor. The Purāṇa's own next sentence then makes a spacious forehead a preceptor's, so the contradiction is partial and sits inside one text.
“A high, capacious, conch-shell-like and rugged fore-head indicates poverty”
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 forehead is spacious.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads this as the mark of a preceptor, agreeing with the Bṛhat Saṁhitā even as its neighbouring sentence disagrees.
“Persons, having spacious fore-heads, become preceptors”
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.