Why Shensha Differ Across Tools: Rules and Data Sources

In Chinese-metaphysics practice, shensha are named markers derived from the ganzhi of a chart according to fixed lookup rules. Each shensha has its own qili, the procedure that determines where it appears. They are not items that a reader may freely adopt or discard according to preference. When two software tools or two printed references disagree about how many shensha a chart contains, the first task is to compare their source scope and their stated lookup methods, not to assume that one side has simply made an arithmetic error.

两个工具的神煞条数对不上很常见

It is common for two tools to report different numbers of shensha for the same chart. This does not automatically mean that one tool is broken. The more likely explanation is that the two tools do not include the same list of shensha in the first place. One tool may include a set of classical names drawn from a particular school or compilation, while another may include a smaller or larger set based on a different editorial policy. A difference in total count is therefore often a difference in inclusion scope rather than a difference in calculation.

For example, one tool may list only shensha that can be derived from the year, month, and day pillars, while another may also include shensha derived from the hour pillar or from the relation between the natal chart and the luck cycles. Some tools add shensha taken from popular manuals that are not part of the core classical set. Others may deliberately exclude markers that overlap heavily with the Five Agents or with the ten gods. None of this is necessarily a sign of faulty computation.

Because of this, a simple side-by-side count is not a reliable test of correctness. What appears to be a missing shensha may simply be a name that the other tool does not recognize as part of its own list. The only way to tell the difference is to inspect each item one by one.

收录不同与算错不同

There is a practical distinction between a difference in inclusion and an actual error in calculation. If tool A lists a name that tool B does not list at all, that is usually an inclusion difference. If both tools list the same name but place it on different pillars, or one tool marks it auspicious while the other marks it inauspicious, then the issue may be a difference in method, or in some cases an actual mistake.

To separate these cases, begin with the missing item. Ask whether the name in question has a repeatable lookup rule. A repeatable rule is one that can be stated in the form: starting from such-and-such a pillar, find such-and-such a branch or stem relation, and if the relation is present, the shensha is assigned to that position. If the item has no such rule, then its absence from one tool is not a sign that the tool failed to compute it. It may be that the name is not a fixed shensha at all.

If the name does have a fixed rule and is still absent from one tool, then the difference is one of scope: the tool simply does not include that name in its list. This is not an error in the sense of miscalculating a present item; it is an editorial decision about what to include. Only when a tool claims to include a name but produces a result that contradicts the stated rule can one speak of a computational problem.

判断一个名目是否有固定查法

The key test for any disputed shensha is whether its lookup method can be restated clearly. A fixed shensha has a qili that can be written down without referring to the judgment of a particular reader. It does not depend on intuition, on the chart’s overall “feel,” or on a modern reinterpretation. It is a mechanical relation between the chart’s four pillars and a set of named markers.

If a name cannot be restated in this way, it is likely not a shensha in the technical sense. It may be a descriptive phrase, a metaphor, or a generated label. Such names often appear when a system has been expanded beyond its original rules. They may sound traditional, but they do not have a fixed procedure behind them.

The distinction matters because only names with fixed procedures can be meaningfully compared across tools. If one tool includes a name whose qili cannot be stated, then asking why another tool does not include it is the wrong question. The right question is whether the name should be treated as a shensha at all.

条数多不构成信息量大

A larger number of shensha does not mean that a chart reading contains more information. In some cases it means only that a tool has included more names, including names without fixed lookup rules or names that overlap with other chart factors. A reading that emphasizes the sheer number of shensha while not stating which pillars were used and how each name was derived has placed its emphasis in the wrong place.

Shensha operate as qualifications of the chart. They modify or color what is already present in the pillars, the stems and branches, and the relations among them. When they are listed en masse without showing the four-pillar structure behind them, they become a form of decoration. The reader cannot tell which markers rest on the year pillar, which on the day branch, and which on the hour. Nor can the reader verify that the listed names follow their stated qili.

Information density in this context comes from showing the derivation, not from maximizing the count. A short list of correctly derived shensha, each tied to its source pillar, tends to be more useful than a long list of unverifiable names.

比对之前要先固定的一件事

Before comparing shensha across two tools, one thing must be fixed first: the four pillars themselves. The ganzhi of the year, month, day, and hour must be identical in both tools. If one tool converts the birth time to a different hour pillar, or if the calendar boundaries are handled differently, then the shensha derived from those pillars will differ for reasons that have nothing to do with the shensha list.

The same hour can produce different pillars in different systems because of differences in the treatment of solar time, time zones, or the beginning of the hour branch. The day pillar can differ if the tools use different conventions for the change of day. The month pillar can differ if the tools use different rules for the start of the solar month. Any of these will change the starting point for shensha lookup.

Once the four pillars are fixed and confirmed to match, the comparison can proceed. At that point the question becomes whether the two tools use the same qili for the same name. If they do, and the results still differ, then one side has made a calculation error. If they do not, the difference is one of method. But if the pillars themselves are not fixed, the comparison is meaningless from the start.

In practice, this site’s free chart layout lists shensha derived from the three pillars, with auspicious and inauspicious classifications noted. After the hour is added, the listing is recalculated from the four pillars. When a name appears with opposite conclusions in two tools, the first thing to check is which pillar each tool used as the starting point. Different qili can yield opposite results for the same name, and this is a difference in convention rather than a proof that one side is wrong. Only after the four pillars are fixed can the comparison of shensha proceed on a sound basis.