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 figure enclosed in the centre of the palm by three lines; when the health line is absent, the line of sun forms the base instead.
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 Great Triangle
What the text says
Cheiro's Great Triangle, also called the Triangle of Mars. Its size is read before any of its contents, and a substituted base changes the reading rather than merely completing the figure.
“formed by the lines of life, head, and the hepatica”
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 triangle is broad, enclosing the whole Plain of Mars.
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 Great Triangle
What the text says
Breadth of view and generosity.
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 triangle is formed of three small wavy lines.
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 Great Triangle
What the text says
Timidity and meanness.
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 base of the triangle is formed by the line of sun in place of the hepatica.
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 Great Triangle
What the text says
Narrow ideas joined to great individuality - and Cheiro rates it high in spite of the narrowness.
“contains within itself the seeds of worldly success”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
The three bracelet lines that cross the wrist below 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: Cheiro (W. J. Warner), Language of the Hand, London: Nichols & Co., 1900
Passage: Language of the Hand (1900), on the Rascettes or Bracelets
What the text says
Cheiro rates them low, and says so in the first person. Recorded because the retail literature - Indian and Western alike - makes far more of them than their own source does.
“I do not consider [them] of much importance”
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 first bracelet arches upward into the palm instead of lying flat across the wrist.
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 Rascettes or Bracelets
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 medical claim about reproductive capacity, from a palmist in 1900. Public domain and therefore quotable; refused anyway, with Benham's nail diagnostics, on the same product-safety line.
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.
A benefic occupies - or, on the flagged limb, aspects - the sign representing that part of the body.
What the text says
A mole on that part. Present this as a check, not a pronouncement: the verse says there is a mark, here - which the reader can confirm or refute in a mirror in five seconds. The aspect limb is flagged: it is in Iyer's printed English verbatim, but whether it is the verse's or the translator's is unsettled, and it roughly triples how often the rule fires.
“but if such signs be occupied or aspected by benefic planets, moles will appear in those parts”
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
That malefic in the 6th is aspected by a benefic.
What the text says
Both a dark and a white mole on the part.
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 maśaka between the brows, or on the forehead. The verse states this of a woman; the compendium's mole material sits inside its strī-lakṣaṇa and is not a general table.
What the text says
Read as a mark of royalty, and of knowledge. The restatement at str. 89 adds that it destroys sorrow and misfortune - one reading, not two. The verse's further clause about children is dropped here, as progeny verdicts are not rendered.
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 red maśaka on the left cheek. The verse states this of a woman.
What the text says
Read as auspicious - the joy of friends, and sweet food.
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 tilaka or lāñchana on the heart or chest. The verse states this of a woman.
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 widowhood class. The research file dispositioned this 'ship, reworded'; rewording a widowhood verse as marital good fortune ships §15 material with the label removed.
A tila or maśaka below the navel. The verse states this of a woman.
What the text says
Read as auspicious. The ṭīkā glosses it "शुभदायक" for that woman.
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 tila or maśaka on the ankles (gulpha). The verse states this of a woman.
What the text says
Read as inauspicious - the ṭīkā glosses it "दुःखदायक" for that woman.
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 white bindu on the nails, in a man. This is the ONLY rule in the 1916 compendium's mole material that is stated of a man at all.
What the text says
Read as a mark of sorrow.
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 white bindu on the nails, in a woman.
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.
A tila on the palm of the hand. This verse applies to a man without qualification - the only such tila rule located anywhere in this corpus.
What the text says
Read as atula-dhana-prada - a giver of incomparable 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.
A tila on the sole of the foot.
What the text says
Read as a giver of conveyances, wealth and 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.
A tila on the arms.
What the text says
The verse says such a person was born in Mūla nakṣatra. This is a correlation the chart can check: the engine computes the janma-nakṣatra to the arcsecond, so the app can agree or disagree with the mark out loud instead of asserting a fortune from it.
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.
A tila below the eyes.
What the text says
The verse says a second mark will be found on the kukṣi, the flank. Again a correlation between two marks, not a prediction about a 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.
A tila on the mouth or face.
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: Genital observation - unaskable; no consented input exists.
A garlic-shaped (lahsun) mark on the body. This is str. 88's FOURTH clause - the stanza is not the three-clause verse it is usually transcribed as.
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: Not censorship - the phala is genuinely unknown. The clause exists, its reading does not survive the OCR, and a rule with a guessed phala is worse than an absent one.
A red tilaka on the right breast.
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: Sex-of-child prediction - PCPNDT Act; §15 permanent exclusion.
A red tilaka on the left breast.
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 widowhood class, plus PCPNDT.
A mark on the right side of the private parts.
Recorded, not transcribed
The text has something to say here, and this app does not print it. That is a decision, not a gap: what is observed stays above, and what the text says follows it appears nowhere in this app.
Editor's note: Unaskable, and §15 strī-lakṣaṇa class.
A maśaka or tila on the tip of the nose - the verse distinguishes red from black.
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 widowhood and chastity class; the two limbs are inseparable.
A mark on the hand, the ear, the cheek, or the left side of the throat.
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: Sex-of-child prediction - PCPNDT Act; §15 permanent exclusion.
A mark on the left flank (kukṣi).
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 class.
A triśūla-shaped mark on the forehead.
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: Strī-lakṣaṇa status claim over named third parties; catalogue only.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
A mole on the eyelid.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located. The eyelid carries a reading in every web mole table and in none of the six texts read for this module.
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 mole on the lip.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the chin.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the neck.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located. The 1916 compendium does carry a mark on the LEFT SIDE OF THE THROAT, but its reading is a sex-of-child clause and is withheld - so there is no shippable neck reading either way.
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 mole on the shoulder.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the arm, read for fortune.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located for a fortune reading. The one attested arm rule in this corpus is the Mūla-nakṣatra correlation at str. 88, and that rule predicts nothing about a life - it says when the person was born.
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 mole on the back.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the hip.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the thigh.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the knee.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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 mole on the calf.
No text is cited for this — it is recorded as tradition, not as doctrine.
What the text says
No source located.
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.