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 thumb is measured in two phalanges - the NAIL phalanx and the MIDDLE phalanx - with the ball at its base counted separately as the Mount of Venus.
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, ¶¶177–193; William G. Benham, The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading, New York, 1900, ch. XVII
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), Sub-section IV ¶¶177–193; Benham ch. XVII
What the text says
The nail phalanx carries WILL and the middle phalanx carries LOGIC; the two are read against each other, and the interesting hands are those where they are unequal. Benham treats the Mount of Venus as the thumb's third element, which is why a thumb is never judged apart from the ball it grows out 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.
A Western thumb rule is stated in ordinals - 'the first phalanx', 'the second phalanx'.
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, ch. XVII, against C. S. d'Arpentigny tr. Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886, ¶192
Passage: Benham ch. XVII; The Science of the Hand (1886), ¶192
What the text says
Resolve the ordinal against its author before using the rule. Benham's first phalanx is the NAIL one, of will; d'Arpentigny's first phalanx, in Heron-Allen's own bracketed gloss, is the LOWER one, of logic. Two public-domain authorities, opposite ordinals, the same anatomy - merge them carelessly and the reading comes out exactly backwards.
“This thumb shows strong will, for the first phalanx is good, shows good logical qualities also, for the second phalanx is strong.”
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 thumb is small, mean and poorly formed.
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), ¶193
What the text says
An irresolute mind and a wavering disposition.
“a thumb which is small, mean, and poorly formed, announces an irresolute mind, and a wavering disposition”
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 middle (logic) phalanx of the thumb is long and well formed while the nail (will) phalanx is thin and short.
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), ¶192
What the text says
Decided opinions and lasting convictions with a quick mind - and, in the same breath, a poor arguer. The source states the limitation with the gift, and the app should not print one without the other.
“decided opinions, strong and lasting convictions, a quick mind … at the same time you will probably be a poor arguer”
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 thumb is tested for flexibility: whether the nail phalanx bends back at the joint, or holds stiff.
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. XVII (the thumb)
What the text says
Benham grades the axis rather than the person. A thumb that bends back reads as pliant, open-handed and adaptable to the moment; a stiff thumb reads as fixed, careful and self-contained. Neither pole is the good 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 thumb is judged for its set - how high or low it is joined to the hand, and how wide an angle it opens from 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. XVII (the thumb)
What the text says
Benham reads a low-set thumb, opening wide from the palm, as the freer and more independent nature, and a high-set thumb held close as the more restrained one. Set is judged before the phalanges, because it conditions how the rest of the thumb is used.
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 epigram attributed to Sir Isaac Newton is printed at the head of a Western thumb chapter, as d'Arpentigny prints it.
From the modern Western chiromancy of Cheiro and Benham (c. 1900) — not from any Sanskrit text, despite how it is usually sold.
Edition: Ed. Heron-Allen, The Science of the Hand, London 1886 (translator's footnote 142)
Passage: The Science of the Hand (1886), n.142
What the text says
The translator disowns it in his own edition. Recorded because it is the model this module wants: an edition sceptical of its own author, in print, in the public domain.
“I have very little hesitation in recording that Sir Isaac never said 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.
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 feet are dry, with soft soles, of the colour of the lotus, with close toes, beautiful, with red nails and beautiful heels, always warm, without visible sinews, with the ankle not standing out, and raised like the turtle.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a royal mark. "Raised like the turtle" is the ARCH, and it is the one arch rule the corpus gives - there is no second.
“If the feet be dry, with soft soles, of the colour of the lotus, with close toes, beautiful, red nails, beautiful heels, always warm without visible sinews, with invisible ankle and raised like the turtle, the person will be 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 feet are like winnows - flat and splayed - or crooked or bent, covered with sinews, dry, with the toes not close, and with nails white and not glossy.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of poverty - the exact opposite of the turtle-arched foot above. The Garuḍa Purāṇa agrees almost word for word.
“If the feet be like winnows, crooked or bent, covered with sinews, dry, with toes not close and with nails white and not glossy, the person will be poor.”
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 feet are large.
What the text says
The chapter reads this as a mark of one who will walk much.
“If the feet be large, he will walk much”
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 feet are of a brown colour.
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 family-death claim keyed to a complexion. Its neighbouring clause in the same stanza is the chapter's caste-crime verse, which is omitted outright rather than withheld.
The feet are warm and like a tortoise, with strong ankles.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads these as the marks of a king - an independent witness to the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's arch rule, in a different translator's English.
“warm feet like tortoise, strong ankles… are the marks 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 feet are rough and uneven, like winnowing baskets.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads these as the marks of poverty.
“Rough, uneven feet like winnowing baskets… are the marks 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 lines of the hands and feet form any of twenty-three figures: a pitcher, a seat, a horse, an elephant, a chariot, a bilva tree, an eight-sided post, an arrow, a flower wreath, a pendant, a cāmara, an elephant-driver's hook (aṅkuśa), a barley grain, a mountain, a flag-staff (dhvaja), an arch-way, a fish (matsya), a cross, a sacrificial altar, a fan, a conch-shell, an umbrella, or a lotus (padma). The chapter states this of a woman.
What the text says
The chapter reads any of these as a mark of queenly rank.
Says something incompatible with 3
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 soles or palms carry any of nineteen figures: a horse, an elephant, a tree, a sacrificial stake, wheat, a tomara, a flag, a chowri, a garland, a hill, a well, an altar, a conch-shell, an umbrella, a lotus, a fish, a svastika, a car, or a goad.
What the text says
The Purāṇa reads these as the signs of royalty in women. Its list adds the svastika and the well, which the Bṛhat Saṁhitā's twenty-three do not have.
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 palm and the sole carry any of twenty-four figures: a plough, a seat, a horse, an elephant, a chariot, a bilva, a tree, a yūpa, an arrow, a garland, a kuṇḍala, a cāmara, an aṅkuśa, a bed, a mountain, a dhvaja, a toraṇa, a fish, a triangle, a vedikā, a fan, a conch, an umbrella, or a lotus.
What the text says
The compendium reads these as attaining the rank of a queen - the same device the Bṛhat Saṁhitā gives at 70.10, member for member in most of the list, which is one of the clearest signs that this late text is transmitting classical material rather than inventing 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 lines on the sole form seven figures: cakra, svastika, śaṅkha, abja (lotus), dhvaja, mīna (fish) and ātapatra (umbrella). AṄKUŚA IS NOT AMONG THEM - the transliteration of this verse was checked member by member.
What the text says
The compendium reads this as becoming a king's wife. This is the nearest thing in the corpus to the five-figure set in general circulation - and it is a seven, not a five.
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 LEFT foot carries eight figures: ardhacandra, kalaśa, trikoṇa, dhanus, śūnya, goṣpada, matsya and śaṅkha. This section is headed explicitly "of men and women", so the 1916 foot material is not strī-only.
What the text says
Such a person's feet are said to be served by Mahālakṣmī.
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 RIGHT foot carries eleven figures: aṣṭakoṇa, svastika, cakra, chatra, java, aṅkuśa, dhvaja, vajra, jambu, ūrdhvarekhā and ambuja (lotus).
What the text says
Such a person's feet are said to be served by Mahālakṣmī. This nineteen-member device, split across the two feet, is the ONLY place in the corpus where all five of the commonly named figures - cakra, padma, dhvaja, aṅkuśa and matsya - occur together. It is still nineteen, and it still does not print them as a 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 sole is dry, discoloured, harsh, winnow-shaped, and leaves no impression when trodden.
What the text says
Read as sorrow and misfortune. This is the negative that immediately precedes the seven-figure verse, and the two must be cited by section, not by bare stanza number.
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.
An ūrdhva (vertical) line on the sole, running up to the middle toe.
What the text says
Read as unbroken enjoyment.
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 line on the sole shaped like a mouse, a snake or a crow.
What the text says
Read as sorrow and 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 big toe is raised, fleshy and round.
What the text says
Read as firm enjoyment.
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 big toe is crooked, short and flat.
What the text says
Read as destroying 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 toes are soft, close-set, round, and rise evenly.
What the text says
Read as auspicious. The Bṛhat Saṁhitā's opening stanza requires close toes in the same terms, which is a rare case of the late compendium and the classical text agreeing on a detail rather than on a device.
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 relative length of the toes, and whether the little toe or the one next to it touches the ground.
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 class.
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.
The same observation, with the comparison INVERTED: the Purāṇa compares the thumb against the forefinger where the Bṛhat Saṁhitā compares the toe next to the big toe against the big toe.
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 class.
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 text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
The five figures cakra, padma, dhvaja, aṅkuśa and matsya, taken TOGETHER as a five-member sole device.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located for the GROUPING. Every member is attested individually, and that is exactly the trap: the sets the texts actually print run to 23 members (BS 70.10), 19 (Garuḍa Purāṇa), 24 (1916, rāja-lakṣaṇa str. 11), 7 (1916, pādatala str. 12, which omits aṅkuśa) and 19 across two feet (1916, nara-nārī str. 17). Not one of them prints these five as a five.
Ship the members; do not ship the set as though a text gave 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.
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.