Amateur comments (?) of christopher jones in his hand reading website.

I know the psychology of christopher jones. I read his claims and criticism on indian palmistry. but, i would like to say, india has 30 states by now (i believe). Each state has it's own mother tongue. Even a indian cannot understand the treasure of indian literatures properly. But, i was not really able to endure some of the bad comments of christopher jones. Indeed, he is misleading. you can see many indian palmists in this forum. Even, they cannot give you the list of indian source book on palmistry. Because, india lives in union in diversity. christian, muslim, buddhism, hinduism, jains, and their various caste, various language of minimum 30 all are living together. we are here in india. anu can speak marati. stalin's (me) mother tongue is tamil, upendraji can speak gujarathi, bhandariji can speak hindi. we, every state of india has the literature. but, we cannot share it due to language variation. but, christopher jones can not understand the union in diversity of indians. Bhandariji had translated some passage from Vedic sanskrit palmistry when he was at piforum. but, peoples were blind to not follow those content properly. These all should be noted before conclude anything about indian scripts. but, christopher cannot understand it as even a indian feel difficult to understand their country due to various languages, caste , and religion among peoples.

Hope, you got what mean.... This is the country is been identified as union in diversity

(stalin originally wrote the above as response to me...)
copied over from other thread....

To give the full quote from his History of handreading website, Christopher says "...many claim that in ancient times there were thousands of books on handreading in India. These claims cannot now be substantiated, as very few (if any) of these original texts now remain."
http://www.cheirology.net/history/india.htm
If you know otherwise stalin, that these original texts still exist somewhere, I'm sure Christopher would be happy to know about it.

stalin.v wrote:But, i was not really able to endure some of the bad comments of christopher jones. Indeed, he is misleading.

Stalin, I wonder which of Christopher's comments you were unable to endure? which do you find misleading?

In the centre paragraph on that page, Christopher wrote:
Mythology and apocraphyl tales aside, the earliest known historical certainty concerning the origins of handreading within the Indian sub-continent dates from about 2000BC, for there is a reference to the practice of handreading in the ancient Vedic literature of India. In the Code of Manu and in the Vasishtha Rules, a list of rules are given to guide the ascetic in the correct way to lead the religious life; and here we find prohibitions which are specifically formulated to forbid the ascetic from earning a living through 'explaining prodigies and omens or by skill in astrology or palmistry'. This is possibly the earliest written mentions of the practice of handreading from anywhere in the world.

So far you have not given any proof that earlier texts exist. (regardless what language they were written in).

By the way, Christopher is not an amateur, he is a very experienced hand reader. He spent years researching his "History of Handreading website".

Hello lynn,

Let christopher come and decipher the palm leaf manuscripts of vaitheeswar temple, tanjore . There after, let him claim whether it is few or huge. Those are the ancient manuscript , can be only decipher by the traditional palmist who are being dedicate their life generation after generation. Those alphabets are called 'vateluthu' in tamil. Those alphabets can be only read by them. Likewise, every part of india there are many traditional palmists carries out the work of ancients milleniums of years , generation after generation, in different languages. So, The claims of christopher is nothing more than ignorance.

Regards, stalin.v

p.s: Being a indian, i could find his amateur knowledge on indian palmistry. He can only decipher some translation of indian books. But, exactly not the all indian scripts of various indian languages.

stalin.v wrote:Hello lynn,
Let christopher come and decipher the palm leaf manuscripts of vaitheeswar temple, tanjore . There after, let him claim whether it is few or huge. Those are the ancient manuscript , can be only decipher by the traditional palmist who are being dedicate their life generation after generation.....

Hi Stalin,
If this source is correct http://lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2873 then there are no existing palm leaf manuscripts from before 10th century.

"It is difficult to say exactly when the palm leaf first began to be used in writing. A fragment of the text of the 2nd Century AC Indian drama had been discovered in Central Asia. However, India has no extant palm-leaf manuscript from before the 10th Century."

This website
http://www.healthmantra.com/siddha/IAS%20Memory%20of%20Asia%20palm-leaf%20manuscript%20preservation.htm
states that "For over two thousand years, scribes have recorded much of India's literary and scientific heritage on the readily available medium of dried, smoothed and smoke-treated leaves of talipot (olai in Tamil) palm trees."

How old are the palm leaf manuscripts of vaitheeswar temple? This website says they were not preserved until 10th century.
http://www.komilla.com/pages/NadiGranthasandPalmLeafAstrology.html

Christopher stated that "the earliest known historical certainty concerning the origins of handreading within the Indian sub-continent dates from about 2000BC" (ie around 4000 years ago) and "...many claim that in ancient times there were thousands of books on handreading in India. These claims cannot now be substantiated, as very few (if any) of these original texts now remain."

What did he say wrong here? The other websites confirm that the existing palm leaf manuscripts are 2000 years younger than the known Vedic scripts that mention palmistry.

Hello lynn,

The claim of christopher on earliest palmistry records and his references on vasista's rules may be true as concerned by available evidences. But, His view points on indian palmistry and his doubt on ancient manuscripts are not seemed to be sensible and fair.

Palm leaf manuscripts are prone to destroy through oxidation, insect bites and other means. Hence, Palm leaf manuscripts should be re-written once in every150years in order to transfer the knowledge century after century. christopher already confirmed by saying that the earliest reference on palmistry exist in 4000 year old manuscript.

Here, i give the website, which claims that oldest civilization of india were around 9,500b.c with the reference of nasa reports and archeological findings. In internet, There are widely varying ideas available about indian culture. but, The authenticity can be obtained by detailed reseach and studies on this subject. The book named 'sacred text of easterns' written by various western authors, namely max.muller, georg buhler etc, and published by oxford university into 50 volumes. This book includes the translation of vashista's rules and code of manu. This book can be the only main references of christopher jones.
http://www.hinduism.co.za/oldest.htm

Seems you agree with what Christopher said about oldest known (existing) palmistry manuscripts.
So I am not sure what you are arguing about Stalin?
edit - what exactly does not seem "sensible and fair"? can you give me a quote?.
(PS I don't read anything in your link that helps in this discussion - did I miss something, or is it another link 'off topic' to this discussion about history of palmistry?)

Hello lynn,

some western scholars and researchers claim that sanskrit is a dead language as the native speakers are lessening over a period of time. In 2001 survey, it was identified that native sanskrit speakers are less than 15,000 peoples among the 100 crore of total indian population. Uttarakhand is the only state follows sanskrit as an official language.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit?wasRedirected=true

These are the reason many palmist tend to read the western palmistry. still, Dravidans, Also called Tamil peoples has the contemporary scriptures of vedic period. Tamil is the independent
language unlike most of the other indian languages. Hindi is 700 year old language . but, it was announced by the goverment as national language due to the dominancy of northern politics and other cultural variations.

Each state of india has it's literature and scripts of it's own, in it's respective mother tongue. Hence, it is difficult to list the ancient literatures, by any of us, unless a person expertised in 30 indian languages. But, christopher claims that now, there are only very few indian palmistry books available in india . I claim here that there are many indian website presents the lists of indian palmistry classics. but, why do christopher doubt about the existence of indian palmistry?

re - "But, christopher claims that now, there are only very few indian palmistry books available in india ."

where does he claim this? Have you misunderstood? He says that very few (if any) of the original ancient texts now remain - which you appear to have confirmed.
please can you give me a quote from his website where Christopher "doubt about the existence of indian palmistry?"

PS You talk about the various languages, but I asked earlier - "So far you have not given any proof that earlier texts exist. (regardless what language they were written in.) "

Hello lynn,

I did no misunderstandings here. I do talk about palmistry classics. Just a logical question i make here in order to understand the truth in opposition the claim of christopher. In Indian temples, (rig) Vedic hymns have been chanted by the priest almost every day which are dated 1500b.c old. There are about 30,000 sanskrit palm leaf manuscripts, 5,000 tamil, few thousand manuscripts of every state individually preserved by indian goverment. Now, we could decipher those scripts through digitalized library(internet). During the british period of india, some palm leaf manuscripts were taken to british by the
british government. But, my question is that why christopher came to the conclusion that only few of the ancient text in india although there are many palmistry classics are available in sanskrit and listed in website(astrojothi.com/net - from my memory). He also criticise the indian palmistry authors at one place(from my memory) by saying something like indian palmistry authors are nowadays taking the content from western palmistry.

christopher states
" Indian palmists are often at pains to assert the ancient origins of their art and many claim that in ancient times there were thousands of books on hand reading in india. These claims cannot now be substantiated, as very few(if any
) of these original texts now remain. This assertion is made all the more unlikely due to the fact that most modern indian palmist seem to follow the traditions of western victorian palmistry rather than any indigenous tradition of their own"

I have just given the reason in my earlier posts that why christopher and other western palmists have such opinions. A traditional palmist will never exposure to computer
and modern technologies. They prefer to give importance to religious rituals , reading scripts and chanting hymns. If you want to learn from them, you will be conditioned , by them, not reveal the secrets to others. Also, Those are taught to only dedicated and trustworthy peoples . Many western peoples learn various arts from indian sages. That can not be done in absence of continuity of ancient culture and traditions. dont you agree?

Hi Stalin,
Please read Mr Upendrasingh Bhadoriya's first post on this other thread
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/iiie-vedic-palmistry-f5/vedic-pamistry-t17.htm

He seems to agree with what Christopher wrote (he has quoted from the copy of Christopher's "History" that appears on Johnny Fincham's site).

Christopher asked me to point out to you
(from the home page of his site)http://www.cheirology.net/history/index.htm

"although this work comprehensively covers the literature to be found in academic institutions within the UK, notable gaps can readily be seen with regard to the literature held within European institutions and much more so with regard to the history of the development of the art in countries such as India, China and the Middle East. Despite these obvious shortfalls, it is some consolation to consider that a historical overview such as this can never be truly complete; it can only be a history of that which has been written down and can therefore only be a history of those texts which have survived the many centuries. Of that which has not been preserved, we can know nothing. "

stalin.v wrote:...But, my question is that why christopher came to the conclusion that only few of the ancient text in india although there are many palmistry classics are available in sanskrit and listed in website(astrojothi.com/net - from my memory). He also criticise the indian palmistry authors at one place(from my memory) by saying something like indian palmistry authors are nowadays taking the content from western palmistry.

christopher states
" Indian palmists are often at pains to assert the ancient origins of their art and many claim that in ancient times there were thousands of books on hand reading in india. These claims cannot now be substantiated, as very few(if any
) of these original texts now remain. This assertion is made all the more unlikely due to the fact that most modern indian palmist seem to follow the traditions of western victorian palmistry rather than any indigenous tradition of their own"

Hi Stalin,

Thank you for presenting a quote from Christopher's work. And I have found it at the page that Lynn present earlier in this discussion: http://www.cheirology.net/history/india.htm

Sorry Stalin, Christopher made a 'fair' comment. For, I think it is true that during the past few decades most palmistry books published by Indian palmists follow a 'western approach'.


Let me illustrate this with an example:

A clear example is K.C. Sen's book "Hast Samudrika Shastra: The Indian Science of Hand Reading" (1960)

The title may suggest that the author represents 'classic' Indian palmistry, but in the introduction the author clearly describes that his book also includes a large part of Western palmistry.

By the way, K.C. Sen makes in his introduction also a very interesting statement in the perspective of your problem with Christopher Jones' writing (page XII):

"It is surprising that palmistry as an exact science has not developed in India to the extent it has in Europe and Amercia. This is mainly due to the fact that its exponents here, Brahmin prietst, do not keep abreast of modern research, and adhere to antiquated rules and techniques, preserved in Slokas and Sutras hoary with age. These have to be interpretated and illustrated in the light of twentieth-century findings, when the will undoubtedly make valuable contributions to the science."

I think this observation made by K.C. Sen illustrates part of the problem: 'classic Indian palmistry' is still based on ancient Slokas & Sutras only. And the Brahmin tradtition appears to implicate that it probably will never get a 'modern update'.


Stalin, this might also implicate... that any attempt for update/translation/rewriting the old knowledge, will be described as 'unauthentic' according the Brahmin tradition.

Which perfectly explains why many Indian palmsts today are ignoring the ancient Indian Slokas & Sutra... simply because Indian culture have evolved in time. But one can not say that Brahmin tradtion did likewise.

I understand, one could claim that the Brahmin tradition was never meant to develop in time - but that might just be an 'irrational' opinion, because the same people might claim that the Brahmin tradition is a science.

Fundamentally, assuming that any true 'science' will strive for development, one could even claims that it is 'fair' to say that Brahmin tradition is not truely as science - because for quite a while it doesn't appear to show the element of development (in time).


Sorry Stalin, I as well think you made an unfair comment by describing Christopher's work as 'amateuristic'. And Lynn's latest reference to mister Upendrasingh Bhadoriya comment is so true: he refers to exactly the same comment from Christopher's work!!! And obviously, this very experienced Indian palmist fully supports what Christopher wrote... with his own experience from palmist contacts & the books!




Mister Upendrasingh.Bhadoriya wrote:
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/iiie-vedic-palmistry-f5/vedic-pamistry-t17.htm

"... “In modern times, Indian palmists are often at pains to assert the ancient origins of their art and many claim that in ancient times there were thousands of books on handreading in India. These claims cannot now be substantiated, as very few (if any) of these original texts now remain. This assertion is made all the more unlikely due to the fact that most modern Indian palmists seem to follow the traditions of Western Victorian palmistry rather than any indigenous tradition of their own!”

His statement is very true as per my experience because I have visited many palmists across India and have many books of various Indian palmists in various languages with me. "

Hello lynn,

Most of the time, we fail to judge the truth and follow what was instructed and claimed by the author of book without checking it's reliablity. As i said earlier, finding the sanskrit scholar is not so easy. Their number is comparitively so least in india, as claimed by me earlier in the discussion.

Before continuing this arguments, i would like to know the source of christopher's work especially when he claim that the oldest palmistry record is 2000b.c old. I would like to know from where he got this date. Wikepedia link gives the list of ancient scripts in chronological order, where it has been mentioned that the oldest written sanskrit script is said to be 300b.c old only. Although, we could find the other pages of wikepedia says, rig Veda is the earliest record found in sanskrit, and dated 1500 b.c. But, christopher claims that "The code of manu" and "vashista's rules" are 2000b.c old. On the other hand, unexplainedmystery.com shows the evidences of 26450 years old sanskrit manuscripts as well, based on radio-carbon research done by CIA.

Now, i come to the another point. Every country has the pre-historic period in history due to the lack of considerable materialistic evidences. This common rule applicable to india as well. When people ask about the origin of palmistry, Any knowledgable palmist can point out his finger towards india and say "here it began". But, finding the origin of palmistry inside the india is really difficult. The time scale of science is recent one. but, the time scale of hinduism has been explained in Vedic cosmology. Thus, Two plus epoches back ,of hindus , the wisdom began. As i said earlier, preserving manuscripts for millenium of years is hard. so, Traditionalists were re-copied the scripts every century. so, radio carbon research on this palm lead scripts will give wrong time scale.

Finally, Vedic cosmology, which has been admired by scientific cosmologists still, can give the details about hinduism better than anything.

" The eldest tamil, a language was created before the creation of stone and sand" - This what we learn tradition after tradition. How can you time the antiquity now?

Adam was created by christ. may be true. where can you find the evidence. How old bible is? Then how it can justify the begining of the world? who answers... It is the same case. Incarnation of lord.vishnu and Vedic cosmology are the answer.

i would like to know the source of christopher's work

Christopher spent many years researching his "History of Palmistry", looking at old manuscripts in library vaults etc. There are many sources quoted on his site. I don't know where he got the date 2000 BC.

Every country has the pre-historic period in history due to the lack of considerable materialistic evidences.

Exactly, that's what Christopher is saying on his homepage...
"it can only be a history of that which has been written down and can therefore only be a history of those texts which have survived the many centuries. Of that which has not been preserved, we can know nothing."

Sorry stalin I am getting lost in your words. We're not talking about the bible, nor about oral traditions, we are talking about the known history of palmistry from existing texts. I am a bit confused now which points you are disagreeing with?