Sarama and Her Children Page 10

  Such questions apart, notice the identification of Vidura, in addition to Yudhishthira, with Dharma, Vidura being the son of a dasi (slave). Hence, the somewhat speculative hypothesis that Yudhishthira may actually have been Vidura’s son. Notice also the hypothesis that the Pandavas may not have originally been from the Gangetic plain, a hypothesis partly based on the practice or acceptance of polyandry. Did these components make it easier for Yudhishthira to identify with a dog? Notice also that Yudhishthira was being perfectly logical in asking that the dog be allowed to accompany him. Given the dog’s identification with the afterworld, what better companion could he have asked for? Being learned and wise, he knew that a dog was Yama’s servant and messenger. Be that as it may, apart from occasional passages, the Mahabharata does not in general reduce dogs to the status of the lowest of the low. Not so in subsequent texts.

  The Harivamsha is not part of the Mahabharata. But it is the khilabhaga (epilogue) to the Mahabharata. And if one adds the shlokas in the Harivamsha to the shlokas in the Mahabharata, the Mahabharata almost has the 100,000 shlokas it is supposed to have. Otherwise, it falls short. Wolves were probably not that common in India, certainly not as much as in Europe or North America. Stories of wolves are rare. The Harivamsha is an exception, because it has a story about Vraja being invaded by wolves.14 Of course, the way the Harivamsha states it, Krishna (and Balarama) wanted the cowherds to move from Vraja to some other place where fodder would be more plentiful. Vrindavana suggested itself. So Krishna created wolves from his pores and these attacked the cowherds. On King Nanda’s instructions, the entire community thereupon moved to Vrindabana.

  It is impossible to date Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Any date between the 4th century BCE and 150 CE is equally plausible. From Kautilya, we get a reasonable idea of life and society of those times. And indeed, Kautilya spent much time on cows, buffaloes, elephants and horses, and very little time on dogs. Depending on the function, nine different names are given for cows and seven different names for bulls. Five different names are given for buffaloes. Depending on what they do, there are fifteen different names for handlers of elephants and ten different names for handlers of horses. But it is not as if dogs were unknown. For example, the recommended ration for a dog was 1 prastha of boiled rice.15 Dogs were clearly used for hunting. Hunters were known as shvaganina or vyadha.16 While a vyadha may or may not have used a dog, a hunter known as shvaganina must have used dogs for hunting. Beyond that, Kautilya has not said much about dogs. There are no clear negative nuances. If anything, Kautilya just ignored them. At least till the epic period, Hinduism thus had no strong negative nuances associated with dogs.

  {5}

  Dharmashastras and the Puranas

  Kautilya’s Arthashastra may have generally ignored dogs, but that proposition is not true of the dharmashastras.1 Like the Manu Samhita, which was probably composed between 200 BCE and 200 CE, and formed part of the dharmashastra heritage, a period not that different from the Arthashastra. It is the dharmashastras that reduced dogs to the lowest of the low. Dogs are not generally lowly creatures in India. They are lowly in the caste Hindu tradition and as the quotes will illustrate, this is not very different from the Islamic tradition. However, caste Hinduism is not the same as Hinduism as a whole.

  Here is what the Manu Samhita has to say on dogs.2 ‘By censuring (his teacher), though justly, he will become (in his next birth) an ass, by falsely defaming him, a dog; he who lives on his teacher’s substance, will become a worm, and he who is envious (of his merit), a (larger) insect (2/201).’ Talk about a dog’s life, at least after reincarnation. There is of course the matter of treating one’s teacher well. But if you don’t, the lowest of the low is an ass, a dog, a worm or an insect, albeit a large one. ‘If he applies sesamum to any other purpose but food, anointing, and charitable gifts, he will be born (again) as a worm and, together with his ancestors, be plunged into the ordure of dogs (10/91).’ ‘The slayer of a Brahmana enters the womb of a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, a deer, a bird, a Kandala, and a Pukkasa (12/55).’ ‘For stealing grain (a man) becomes a rat, for stealing yellow metal a Hamsa, for stealing water a Plava, for stealing honey a stinging insect, for stealing milk a crow, for stealing condiments a dog, for stealing clarified butter an ichneumon (12/62).’ The Manu Samhita is not alone in singling out a dog’s life for evil ones after reincarnation. The Chhandogya Upanishad (5/10/7) also states that evil ones will be born as dogs, pigs or chandalas in later lives. Vishnu Samhita (44/19) has a specific variation. Those who steal juice, such as sugarcane juice, will be reborn as dogs. And Yajnavalka Samhita (3/207) yet another. Those who kill brahmanas, drunkards, stealers of gold, those who have intercourse with their teachers’ wives and those who associate with these four types of criminals first suffer in hell. After suffering in hell, they are reborn. Those who kill brahmanas are reborn as dogs, pigs, deer and camels. ‘But the foolish man who eats first without having given food to these (persons) does, while he crams, not know that (after death) he himself will be devoured by dogs and vultures.’3 This applies to a person who eats without first offering food to guests. The association of dogs with death and the afterlife is understandable. But notice the identification of dogs with vultures.

  ‘Let him gently place on the ground (some food) for dogs, outcasts, Kandalas (Svapak), those afflicted with diseases that are punishments of former sins, crows, and insects.’4 At least, the first part is not that nasty. More accurately, it is not nasty towards dogs, although it is nasty towards chandalas. The expression chandala is sometimes used as a synonym for, or equated with, a shudra. However, in Manu’s own taxonomy, chandala has a specific definition (10/12–16). A chandala is the progeny of a shudra father and a brahmana mother, someone born of an unmarried mother or the offspring when husband and wife belong to the same gotra. To get back to the quote in question, every brahmana has to place some food on the ground for dogs, outcastes and chandalas. But in the second part, dogs are also equated with crows and insects, presumably insects of the larger variety. Notice also the description of a chandala as svapak. This may mean someone who feeds dogs. It may also mean someone who feeds on dogs. ‘Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the murder of a Sudra (10/132).’ This is also primarily nasty towards a shudra. However, it is clear that dogs belonged to the lowest rung of the animal world.

  At sacrifices, one must avoid, ‘A breeder of sporting-dogs, a falconer, one who defiles maidens, he who delights in injuring living creatures, he who gains his subsistence from Sudras, and he who offers sacrifices to the Ganas (3/164).’ But clearly, breeding of sporting dogs was known.

  ‘A tear sends the (food) to the Pretas, anger to his enemies, a falsehood to the dogs, contact with his foot to the Rakshasas, a shaking to the sinners (3/230).’ This is about due diligence while eating. ‘A Kandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman, and a eunuch must not look at the Brahmanas while they eat (3/239).’ Pigs, cocks and dogs belong to the same category. The rite of offering food to the gods and the manes is rendered useless if a dog happens to look in that direction. ‘A boar makes (the rite) useless by inhaling the smell (of the offerings), a cock by the air of his wings, a dog by throwing his eye (on them), a low-caste man by touching (them (3/241).’ Again, dogs and cocks belong to the same category.

  ‘He may subsist by Rita (truth), and Amrita (ambrosia), or by Mrita (death) and by Pramrita (what causes many deaths); or even by (the mode) called Satyanrita (a mixture of truth and falsehood), but never by Svavritti (a dog’s mode of life) (4/4).’ Svavritti is the servile professions, not indicated for brahmanas. This quote is for a brahmana in the garhasthya or householder stage of life. ‘A Brahmana shall not recite (the Veda) during a dust-storm, nor while the sky is preternaturally red, nor while jackals howl, nor while the barking of dogs, the braying of donkeys, or the grunting of camels (is heard), nor while (he is seated) in a co
mpany (4/115).’ At least this time round, a dog is equated with camels. Frogs, cats, snakes, ichneumons, rats and sometimes even cattle belong to the same category. ‘Know that (the Veda-study must be) interrupted for a day and a night, when cattle, a frog, a cat, a dog, a snake, an ichneumon, or a rat pass between (the teacher and his pupil) (4/126).’ Going by the Goutama Samhita 16/4, studying must be stopped when dogs, jackals or donkeys make a noise.

  Understandably, in Manu, a brahmana must not eat food touched by a dog. ‘Nor that at which the slayer of a learned Brahmana has looked, nor that which has been touched by a menstruating woman, nor that which has been pecked at by birds or touched by a dog (4/208).’ ‘He who eats what is left by a cat, by a crow, by a mouse (or rat), by a dog, or by an ichneumon, or (food) into which a hair or an insect has fallen, shall drink (a decoction of) the Brahmasuvarkala (plant) (11/160).’ In other dharmashastra texts, penance must be performed for six months if one eats food touched by a dog and one must also bathe if one is touched by a dog.5 A brahmana must not touch food offered by a dog-trainer. ‘By trainers of hunting dogs, publicans, a washerman, a dyer, a pitiless (man), and a man in whose house (lives) a paramour (of his wife).’6 So there were trainers of hunting dogs also. What is true of food is also true of water. You must not touch water touched by shvapakas and chandalas.7 If such disaster indeed happens, the penance is eating the five sacred products that come from a cow. Or living on cow’s urine for three days.8 Progressively, the penance seems to have become less, such as fasting for only one day.9 A menstruating woman who has been touched by a dog should not be touched until she has performed penance by fasting and drinking the five sacred products obtained from a cow.10

  There are rare occasions when a dog is not that bad. ‘The mouth of a woman is always pure, likewise a bird when he causes a fruit to fall; a calf is pure on the flowing of the milk, and a dog when he catches a deer. Manu has declared that the flesh (of an animal) killed by dogs is pure, likewise (that) of a (beast) slain by carnivorous (animals) or by men of low caste (Dasyu), such as Kandalas (5/130–31).’ Deer meat is pure, even if it is touched or killed by dogs or chandalas.11 Yet again, a reference to dogs being used for hunting. However, Sambartta Samhita (195) says that one should not touch food brought by a dog.

  When one moves on to the next or third ashrama of life, Manu Samhita says, ‘Let him not (in order to beg) go near a house filled with hermits, Brahmanas, birds, dogs, or other mendicants (6/51).’ If we do not have good kings, crows and dogs will run riot. ‘The crow would eat the sacrificial cake and the dog would lick the sacrificial viands, and ownership would not remain with any one, the lower ones would (usurp the place of) the higher ones (7/21).’ ‘(The reward) of all meritorious deeds which thou, good man, hast done since thy birth, shall become the share of the dogs, if in thy speech thou departest from the truth (8/90).’ Dogs presumably also attacked herds. ‘The herdsman alone shall make good (the loss of a beast) strayed, destroyed by worms, killed by dogs or (by falling) into a pit, if he did not duly exert himself (to prevent it) (8/232).’ ‘(The owner of the field) shall make there a hedge over which a camel cannot look, and stop every gap through which a dog or a boar can thrust his head (8/239).’12 Dogs and pigs are not as valuable as donkeys, sheep and goats. ‘For donkeys, sheep, and goats the fine shall be five mashas; but the punishment for killing a dog or a pig shall be one masha (8/298).’ Fasting for three nights is indicated if one happens to kill a dog.13 There is an alternative. In you inadvertently kill a dog, live for three days only on milk or walk one yojana.14 The punishment is identical for killing a cat or a mongoose.

  But dogs were used as an instrument for exercising punishment. In Manu Samhita: ‘If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall cause her to be devoured by dogs in a place frequented by many (8/371).’ If there were dogs, the dogs must have bitten people. Hence, there is the following matter of becoming pure. ‘He who has been bitten by a dog, a jackal, or a donkey, by a tame carnivorous animal, by a man, a horse, a camel, or a (village) pig, becomes pure by suppressing his breath (Pranayama) (11/200).’

  Penal provisions underline a dog’s lowly station in life. ‘For violating a Guru’s bed, (the mark of) a female part shall be (impressed on the forehead with a hot iron); for drinking (the spirituous liquor called) Sura, the sign of a tavern; for stealing (the gold of a Brahmana), a dog’s foot; for murdering a Brahmana, a headless corpse (9/237).’ While dogs were used for hunting, there are no signs of their having been domesticated in the sense of being household animals. Except for chandalas. ‘But the dwellings of Kandalas and Svapakas shall be outside the village, they must be made Apapatras, and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys (10/51).’

  Finally, dog meat was taboo. Manu Samhita (10/106–08) has the following story. ‘Vamadeva, who well knew right and wrong, did not sully himself when, tormented (by hunger), he desired to eat the flesh of a dog in order to save his life. Bharadvaga, a performer of great austerities, accepted many cows from the carpenter Bribu, when he was starving together with his sons in a lonely forest. Visvamitra, who well knew what is right or wrong, approached, when he was tormented by hunger, (to eat) the haunch of a dog, receiving it from the hands of a Kandala.’ This is the Vishvamitra story we have mentioned earlier. And understandably, one should not eat the shit or drink the urine of dogs, donkeys, camels, monkeys, jackals and crows.15 Nor should you drink water from a well if you find the dead body of dog, jackal or monkey inside the well.16

  Among other things, the brahmana influence codified the varna (caste) system. Certainly, the brahmana influence itself evolved over time and was largely a reaction to Buddhism, Jainism and similar other movements. The vedic period (1500–200 BCE) is not the same as the Kalpa Sutra cum upanishad period, which is even more difficult to date precisely. But clearly, the brahmana influence tightened over time and rigidities crept in. And the influence became even more rigid in the Maurya period (322–185 BCE) and the subsequent Gupta period (320–550 CE). But it is perhaps fair to say that we are talking about the period from 500 BCE to 500 CE. Symptomatic of the brahmana influence was the attempt to place everything into a varna hierarchy, not just humans. For example, both the Taittiriya Brahmana and the Satapatha Brahmana divide gods into brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras.17 In the Taittiriya Brahmana classification, Agni and Brihaspati were brahmanas. Indra, Varuna and Soma were kshatriyas. Rudra, Aditya and the Vaisvedevas were vaishyas. Finally, Pusha18 was a shudra. There was also a hierarchy for metres. Gayatri is identified with brahmanas, tristubh with kshatriyas and jagati with vaishyas. Given this tendency to classify everything into a fourfold hierarchy, it is not surprising that such an attempt should also extend to animals. Even the Gita (5/18), part of the Mahabharata, has the following. ‘Vidya-vinay-sampanne brahmane govi hastini, shuni chaiva svapake cha panditah samadarshinah.’ The wise man looks upon everything in exactly the same way. Whether it be a learned and humble brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog (actually bitch) or an outcaste (actually svapak or dog feeder). In other words, a cow or an elephant is equated to a brahmana. But a dog is equated to an outcaste. A dog is the shudra of the animal kingdom. This is a bit like erecting a sign that says, ‘Dogs and chandalas keep out.’ Indeed, there are now reports that in Kerala, upper castes are objecting to Dalits keeping male dogs.19 The problem is that these dogs mate with female dogs kept by the upper castes and corrupt their chasteness.

  This also explains why the status of the dog in India is under-researched, more accurately, not researched at all, unlike other flora or fauna. After all, who conducts most Indological research? Brahmanas, and to them, the dog is taboo also for research purposes. Thus, ‘To the Indian, the dog is the most unclean of all animals, a polluted scavenger, the very image of evil; domestication has not served to bathe away his sins in the eyes of the Hindus.’20 O’Flaherty also gives us a delightful palindrome. ‘Dog as a devil deified lives
as a god.’ However, to repeat what was said earlier, caste Hinduism is not the same as the belief of every Indian, even if the impact of the caste system in terms of the four varnas runs very deep.

  Many beliefs about gods and goddesses can be traced to the puranas.21 This may mean the mahapuranas or the upapuranas. There are supposed to be eighteen mahapuranas and eighteen upapuranas. But there is no consensus about the list of upapuranas and there are regional variations in listings. That apart, upapuranas are of later vintage. Let us therefore restrict ourselves to the mahapuranas. This means Agni Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Bhavishya Purana, Brahma Purana, Brahmanda Purana, Brahmavaivarta Purana, Garuda Purana, Kurma Purana, Linga Purana, Markandeya Purana, Matsya Purana, Naradiya Purana, Padma Purana, Skanda Purana, Vamana Purana, Varaha Purana, Vayu Purana (or Shiva Purana) and Vishnu Purana. The range is possibly from around 200 to 300 CE for the earliest puranas like the Vayu Purana, Vishnu Purana and Markandeya Purana, to 1300 CE or even later for those like the Brahma Purana and Naradiya Purana.

  Various puranas confirm what has already been mentioned about dogs. First, they confirm dogs existed. According to some puranas, Shyama and Shabala were Sarama’s offspring. These seem to have been sons. According to other puranas, like the Vayu Purana, Sarama’s offspring were named Tulalagha, Kola and Siva. This is the right place to mention the second Sarama, clearly associated with the Sarama who was the dog. This second Sarama was one of Daksha’s thirteen daughters whom the sage Kashyapa married. And this Sarama gave birth to all carnivores, not just dogs. Both the Bhagavata Purana and the Skanda Purana mention this. In the puranas, dogs are described in connection with hunting. For example, King Ikshaku of Koshala went on a hunt. And this was with dogs, although dogs had no further role to play, according to the description, in the hunt. King Ikshaku is described as shavirjukto (with dogs).22 Or take the Raghuvamsha by Kalidasa, which describes Rama’s family. In one part of the text, King Dasaratha’s hunt is described, the hunt that eventually led to a curse being imposed on him, a curse that in turn led to his dying when his son was away. In this hunt, Dasharatha entered the forest after men with dogs and nets had preceded him.23 The Vishnu Purana divides animals into wild and domesticated ones, and dogs do not figure in either list.24 Domesticated animals, as per the list, included cows, horses, goats, sheep and donkeys. The Agni Purana (231/10–20) classifies animals into three types—domesticated cum village based (gramya), wild (aranya) and those that can be both (gramyaranya). Cows, horses, camels, donkeys and dogs figure in the village list. Sheep, goats, buffaloes, cats and chickens figure in the village–forest list. This suggests that references to dogs meant domesticated dogs, not wild ones. And as was mentioned earlier, duties of householders included providing food to dogs, chandalas and outcastes.25 Or take the example of Rantideva.26 Rantideva donated away all his wealth for the sake of others, until there was nothing left. He and his family had to starve and go hungry. After lasting without food or water for forty-eight days, the family was close to death. On the forty-ninth day, a well-wisher brought some food and water. But just as they were about to eat, a brahmana guest turned up. When the brahmana guest had been served and they sat down to eat again, a shudra guest turned up. When the shudra guest had been served and the family sat down to eat again, a person turned up with some dogs and said that he and his dogs were hungry. King Rantideva served up all the remaining food to this man and his dogs. Dogs have no further role to play in this story. An outcaste turned up and consumed the water also. However, Rantideva was blessed for his sacrifice. The Lubdhaka story belongs to the same category.27 Lubdhaka was a hunter and his wife was named Ghonodari. Inadvertently, while hunting, Lubdhaka ended up praying to Shiva on Shivaratri. Husband and wife planned to eat. But before eating, they kept their food on a riverbank and went to bathe. Meanwhile, along came a dog and ate up all the food. Thanks to this enforced fast, the couple went straight to heaven. It is certainly no more than coincidence that the brightest star in Canis Major is Sirius and that Sirius is known in Indian astronomy as Lubdhaka.