Dog Duty Ascetic and Rebirth -- Part I

Many who argue that the Buddha believed in literal rebirth often refer to the interesting Kukkuravatika Sutta, or the Dog Duty Ascetic sutta, to support their claim.

Even a casual glance of the sutta does appear to lend support to their position that the Buddha not only taught but believed in rebirth. The sutta in question relates the Buddha in conversation with two rather bizarre characters, one of which acts like a bull and the other a dog. The two men ask the Buddha what is the result of acting like such animals and the Buddha reluctantly tells them they will both either enter the “animal womb” or niraya (hell).

If we take the sutta at face value it appears to be straight forward with no real room to interpret it in another fashion. However, before making too hasty a conclusion let us try to better understand the context of the sutta by examining these two characters and at least attempt to understand the motivation behind their actions which may bring some insight as to why the Buddha responded as he did.

Doing some research into the ancient Indian texts that were known during the Buddha’s time presents us with evidence that such behavior was indeed present and even sanctioned by the influential and widespread Vedic religious thought. One particular example can be found in the Jaiminiya Brahmana 2.113 and the Taittiriya-Brahmana 2.7.6 which describes such actions as behaving as a bull and even committing incest with one’s own mother as part of the Gosava rite or “vow of the bull.” The Taittiriya-Brahmana explains that such a rite should be consummated if one wants to obtain svarajya or the power of sovereignty or independent dominion (Narayan Jha, 46). It appears that there was belief that by imitating a bull or some other animal one could somehow gain and transfer its power from the animal realm to the human one. This type of primitive belief is very reminiscent of shamanistic beliefs systems shared in many small scale societies.

Why specifically the bull was one of the animals chosen to imitate is not altogether clear, but it is interesting to note that in the Vedas the bull is seen as self-ruling and powerful and often associated with one of the most powerful of the ruling gods: Brahma (Kr Singh, 245).

Another possible reason for such behavior is these ascetics are belaboring under the commonly held ascetic view of the time that by engaging in severe hardships one would later experience pleasant existences due to the equalizing force in the universe. The basic idea of suffering now so as to experience happiness later permeated much of ascetic thought during the Buddha’s time (Gombrich, 37).

In the sutta, the two ascetics never announce their motivation directly, but the Buddha does when he explains to them the result of their practices:

Here, Seniya, someone develops the ox duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox mind fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of oxen. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious like I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case.

The Buddha replies in the exact same fashion for the dog ascetic, and we are left to believe that the two characters acted in such a manner in order to arise in a heavenly world as a god or some other higher being.

Maybe the ox performer believed he would become a powerful god like Brahma and the dog ascetic as Sarama -- a high level heavenly dog of Vedic mythology.

Regardless of the exact reasons, both men seem to believe that if they keep with their present course of action they will achieve a better existence as framed within the folds of Vedic belief system.

Now of crucial interest is how the Buddha responds to the question as to what is their final path (abhisamparāya). The Buddha replies that they will either appear in the company or in the companionship (sahavyatā) with the animal imitated or a downward-path (niraya). The fact that the Buddha uses the word companionship, or sahavyatā, is important.

In the Upanishads the ultimate soteriological goal is the union or companionship with Brahma. By the Buddha mentioning companionship with dogs or oxen seems to me to almost poking fun.

The important thing to understand is that the Buddha is using Vedic language to communicate in terms the ascetics are familiar and immersed in. By the Buddha telling the two men that at best they will end up in an oxen or doggy world, he is not just teasing them but pointing out the damage of such beliefs within the fold of the Buddha’s idea of kamma.

By indicating they will end up with animals if they act animals; he is telling them that the results of actions are commensurate with the action itself; by acting like a dog, you becomes a dog and not a god. I also think the Buddha is effectively denying the ascetic belief that by suffering now bliss will be followed later. He is instead saying the opposite is true: by inflicting hardships now will only lead to hardships later.

Understandably the two ascetics are incredibly distraught with the Buddha’s answer and the ox ascetic bursts into tears. In between his weeping, he asks the Buddha a better way to act so he can abandon his ox laden ways.

The Buddha’s answer is very interesting and is the subject of Part II.

References

Gombrich, Richard F. 1996. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. London, Althlone Press.

Kr Singh, Nagendra. 1997. Vedic Mythology. New Delhi, A.P.H Publishing Corporation.

Narayan Jha, Dwijendra. 2002. The Myth of the Holy Cow. New Delhi, Verso.

Tull, Herman W. 1989. The Vedic Origins of Karma. Albany, State University of New York Press.