MBTI: House Oak

"Babur Receives a Courtier," Farrukh Beg

[Image from Wikipedia]


“The Aristocrats”
Fi/Te + Se/Ni
(INTJ ENTJ ISFP ESFP)

Home: the Castle
Patron: Taranis
Socionics: Gamma
Vice: Vindictiveness
Virtue: Honor


Oak is the castle on the hill, home of the Aristocrats, gracious, honorable, and unconquerable; ESFP, ISFP, ENTJ, and INTJ. Leaders who understand that their charge, first and foremost, is to serve a noble purpose. They use their formidable power to build Heaven’s kingdom on earth for the well-being of all who rely on them.

Individuating attitude; tries to affirm a personal, subjective standard; Se/Ni is a black hole, synthesizing many disparate things into a singularity. Can lead to dogmatism, or a commitment to perspective. Name for this group is Royalty [Aristocrats]; the sure perspective/dogma of the Saints [Cenobites], but with an independent, individuating sense of judgment. Don’t want to be ruled by others but feel a strong sense of going their way as if they had blue blood, as well as a desire to fill some definite vision.

ESFP: Says “yes” to life; a hearty, energetic, lovable royal, full of spirit and love of life but also a definite sense of independence, a free spirit, that reminds us of their nobility.

ISFP: Similar to the ESFP but milder; presents an aura or style, giving the impression of a natural otherworldliness or separateness. Both of these types also have a directness and commitment of perspective, although it’s more focused on present reality but which adds to the sense of a royal figure in their self-assurance.

INTJ: A reserved strategist, able to navigate politics with the coldness necessary to maintain order.

ENTJ: More heavy-handed in their navigation, crushing their opposition with more obvious displays of power.

- Michael Pierce, “Function Axes Categories”  (YouTube)


Socionics: Gamma Quadra

Aristocrats have a tendency to prioritize long-term profitability over short-term; they look at the broader benefits rather than just those that affect them. They enjoy talking about where trends are leading as regards potential profitability, and prefer ideas that are firmly grounded in fact. They tend to take a hard-line approach to punishment, even resorting to revenge sometimes. In relationships they value personal loyalty. They tend to be skeptical that people can change for the better.

They tend to prefer productive groups to those that are just having fun. They reject the idea that one should avoid confrontations so as to not spoil the mood, and don’t really see the point in discussing and analyzing things they feel have no practical application. They’re far more likely to discuss possible developments of present circumstances or how they came about than to speculate on alternative scenarios or possibilities.

Aristocrats generally prefer smaller groups (3 is a good number), where there may not be a lot of boisterous laughter and obvious displays of emotion but there’s a lot of smiling, amusement, and ironic and witty comments. If serious or unhappy topics come up they are discussed with a serious demeanor. They prefer topics such as subjects of mutual interest, planning activities, or on personal experiences; the last isn’t for the purpose of making people laugh, or to boast, but to gain insight into the lessons to be drawn from them.

If they’re in a large group, such as a dinner party, they usually focus on those sitting closest to them, or simply remain silent. Once they form a group they tend to be wary of newcomers, being neither inclusive nor exclusive. Conversation tends to focus on career, investments, romantic prospects, or why past relationships failed. In more light-hearted moments such conversations can get a little bawdy with some light teasing.

Rituals are less important to Aristocrats than the feelings involved. Relationships develop from exchanges of information, ideas, meaningful personal experiences, mutual aid, and activities enjoyed together.


How Aristocrats see other houses:

Alpha (Ash): Initially Aristocrats find Philosophers to be friendly, creative, and well-meaning, pleasant people. Later, however, they tend to see them as unambitious and overly concerned with comfort and physical pleasure. They also find them to be oversensitive while, at the same time, failing to make an effort to focus on the deeper feelings involved.

Beta (Yew): Find Cenobites to be driven, ambitious people with a sense of purpose, and who get things done. Aristocrats often find the Cenobites’ strong views to be ideological and lacking factual support. They may also feel that they’re are overly concerned with social status and sometimes disingenuous when pursuing their goals.

Delta (Rowan): Find Explorers to be well meaning and creative but too present focused and lacking ambition. They also tend to feel that they’re too welcoming and forgiving of people the Aristocrats find undeserving.


How other houses see Aristocrats:

Ash: They tend to view Aristocrats as standoffish and cold, or even hostile, especially in work situations. They also dislike the Aristocrats tendency to play favorites, which is offensive to the fair-minded, egalitarian Philosophers. They can find Aristocrats to be overly harsh, unimaginative, boring, overly concerned about the future, as well as having a mean-streak of unforgivingness and vindictiveness.

Yew: Can find Aristocrats to be stand-offish, judgmental, morally stiff and emotionally hostile. They often feel that Aristocrats are unable to see the big picture, whether at work or in politics and society at large; kind of socially boring, unable to take a joke, and vindictive. They often don’t do well in groups: Cenobites enjoy making general jokes, while Aristocrats tend to make extremely sharp, personal jokes. Cenobites want to stay together, Aristocrats want everyone to take care of their own needs as they move from group to group, leading Cenobites to feel that the Aristocrats are trying to break up the fun group. On an individual level, however, they often get along very well; they both see general trends and enjoy comparing predictions.

Rowan: Explorers tend to see Aristocrats as driven and reliable but lacking in the ability to understand that people have their own ideas about what they want out of their lives. They feel that Aristocrats can be excessively demanding, and dislike what they see as their vindictive streak, which keeps them from accepting and forgiving others.


Oak

Strength, Stability, Nobility

Honored for it’s endurance, strength, and noblility, Oak has a regal presence that many throughout the ages have recognized and admired. The “King of the Forest” is known for providing protection, strength, success, and stability. It’s dense foliage provides a home for countless small creatures to live and thrive, the tree’s nutritious acorns providing food and sustenance. In nature the Oak is one of the most important trees for the creatures of the forest.

Oak brings courage and a stout heart - endurance and the protective power of faith - as it boosts energy and helps us achieve our goals. “Bearing strength from the heart of the earth, oak fairy can bring steadiness and a deep joy that endures through all.”

Of all the trees in Britain and Ireland the oak is considered king. Famed for its endurance and longevity, even today it is synonymous with strength and steadfastness.

Mara Freeman, "Tree Lore: Oak," (Druidry.org)


The oak is associated with Taranis, the god of thunder. Though not much is known about him he shares a common ancestor with other Indo-European sky gods, including Zeus and Jupiter, who were also connected with the oak. Taranis was also associated with the wheel, generally thought to be the solar wheel. Zeus and Jupiter’s bird, the eagle, is also associated with the oak in Celtic mythology; when the hero-king Lleu was betrayed and wounded he turned into an eagle and took shelter in the top of a large oak tree, reminiscent of the god king Odin hanging from another world tree. Eagle, sky, lighting, and the majestic oak; all are symbols of the warrior king gods of Indo Europe. Even though we don’t know much about Taranis we do know about his formidable relatives; we can assume that he shares their traits of endurance, fearlessness, and vision.

Let’s look at the eagle to get a better sense of this god; in Celtic stories this bird is usually associated with wisdom and a long life. It represents swiftness, strength, and keen sight. In the lists of the oldest creatures, the eagle is only superseded by the wise salmon. In cultures around the world the eagle is a symbol of strength, leadership, and vision. The eagle is the king of the birds, flying higher than its winged brethren. It teaches us to have stamina and the resilience to endure; to have the courage to look to the future and strike out toward our destiny; and the strength to stand for one's principles.

When an eagle appears, you are on notice to be courageous and stretch your limits. Do not accept the status quo, but rather reach higher and become more than you believe you are capable of. Look at things from a new, higher perspective. Be patient with the present; know that the future holds possibilities that you may not yet be able to see. You are about to take flight.

Trish Phillips, "Fly Like the Eagle," (Pure Spirit)


The sacred task of House Oak is to create a prosperous, peaceful, flourishing kingdom, for the benefit of all. Each of the types accomplishes this in a different way: ISFP, to express the deepest truths through beauty; ESFP, to bring grace and the love that moves the world; INTJ, to serve their vision of a better future; and ENTJ, as the protector of their people.

The oak is a living legend representing all that is true, wholesome, stable, and noble… There is a reason the oak is considered the king of green realm. The oak is generous with its gifts – and just as any good ruler would, shares its bounty amongst the kingdom.

"Oak Tree: Symbolism, Information and Planting Instructions" (Bios Urn)

In the castle: the ESFP, hearty and brave, fun-loving but driven, the charming leader of Camelot; the ISFP walks mildly through the court, like an Elven dignitary, praised for their artistic talent and very presence; the INTJ philosopher-king, a good friend and honest, willing to follow after the SFPs in having a good time, but still a somewhat severe character, concerned with strategy and maintaining power; the ENTJ is the head of the army, famous for crushing their opposition and enjoying clear manifestations of the state’s power in discouraging enemies of the state, but also enjoying life with a boisterous smile and energetic drive.

- Michael Pierce, “Function Axes Categories”  (YouTube)



Posts

The Houses
House Ash
House Yew
House Rowan
Jungian MBTI


For further reading

Avia Venefica, "Celtic Meaning Oak Tree," (What's Your Sign)
"Oak" (The Goddess Tree)

MBTI: House Yew

Bagan, Myanmar

[Photo by Jon Bower National Geographic]

 “The Cenobites”
Functions: Fe/Ti + Se/Ni
(INFJ ENFJ ISTP ESTP)

Home: the Monastery
Patron: Badb Catha
Quadra: Beta
Vice: Truculence
Virtue: Conviction


If the Philosophers are the mind - the spirit - of the MBTI then the Cenobites are it’s soul. Michael Pierce calls the members of House Yew the “Saints,” I chose the term “cenobite” which means members of a monastic order, both male and female. In the monastery we have have both the stereotypically “saintly” types, such as the INFJs and ENFJs, as well as types less commonly thought of as religious, such as the ISTPs and ESTPs; the Cenobites understand that the sacred isn’t separate from the body or the world but is an integral part of it, and vice-versa. All cenobites are warriors at heart; ESTPs and ISTPs love testing themselves, and ENFJs and INFJs are crusaders.

Harmonizing attitude, tries to align with an outside standard of some kind. Se/Ni is a magnifying or intensifying attitude; directly experiences objects but associatively experiences their impressions of objects. Se/Ni is a black hole; it sucks objects into itself and crushes them into a singularity. Unifying and intensifying; intensive, direct, and focused; dedicated or committed to certain points of view therefore tending to appear dogmatic sometimes. Thinking in terms of a greater good or separate standard they are trying to subject themselves to.

ISTP: Mastering. Analyze reality, figure out it’s logical structure, then try to copy or align themselves with that structure. A warrior monk.

ESTP: Even though wouldn’t think of them as spiritual, ESTPs still think in terms of living according to an outside standard, which is in their personal philosophy and their concern with communicating properly with others. Epicurus; secluded himself in a garden with his friends and imposed on himself rules and laws of practical hedonism (do what feels good; eating healthily feels good so eat that way, etc.) Rules by which one can have a more satisfying experience of reality.

ENFJ: An outspoken saint; a preacher or evangelist who is concerned with communicating a vision, or persuading others to unite for a greater good or cause.

INFJ: A less outspoken and more contemplating saint; the monk who spends a great deal of time thinking or teaching in intimate settings, developing a holistic or idealistic theory of what humanity must do to be happy.

- Michael Pierce, “Function Axes Categories”  (YouTube)


Socionics: Beta Quadra

Cenobites tend to prefer situations where the power structure is clearly defined… where the rules are consistent and there are no ambiguities. They’re inclined to look for general rules that explain people, politics, etc., which can be applied generally, rather than making decisions on a case by case basis. They tend to attribute traits previously observed in members of a particular group to any new individual of the same group that they may meet. Tend to feel energy by being with others who share their beliefs and express them enthusiastically. They’re often concerned with social issues and believe that apathy is a major cause of society’s ills and will fight against it.

They generally don’t enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on their inner feelings, especially when described in a subdued way. They tend to be skeptical of people’s potential for personal growth and generally dislike being the subject of such discussions. Tend to prefer vision and leadership to dealing with mundane details.

In groups Cenobites prefer group participation rather than focusing on any one individual, preferring instead to discuss topics that everyone can contribute to. Unexplained inside jokes are considered rude because they exclude others. Jokes are loud and general, often about stereotypes. Cenobites try to draw others into the group activity and will be confused and dismayed if rebuffed. Atmosphere is more important than the actual activity; they exchange fun, often loud stories to feed the energy and will only usually interrupt someone to try to help them keep the positive vibes going.

They tend to find quieter gatherings, where small groups break off and start intimate conversations, to be boring, although they do sometimes enjoy more serious, subdued conversations about meaningful topics; politics, etc. In this situation personal experiences are discussed from the point of view of their external impact, with strongly expressed views. They strongly avoid talking about personal matters in a group and can feel betrayed when someone retells in public that which was spoken in private, or when someone discusses them or criticizes them in front of the group. They also dislike it when people tell long, slow stories, though they will generally try to be polite and listen.

Close relationships are characterized by emotional intensity - relationships are felt to be lacking if not accompanied by intense demonstrations of emotions. Cenobites tend to be the most emotionally intense of all the quadras, which is probably why they so dislike exposing their inner feelings in public.


How Cenobites see other houses:

Alpha (Ash): Cenobites tend to find Philosophers to be fun and creative - pleasant company - but also goofy, lacking focus and ambition, and too concerned with refining ideas and having fun. They see them as needing to be led. Groups of Philosophers and Cenobites generally get along better than individuals as Fe activates; Cenobites start telling loud stories, and Philosophers make goofy suggestions for entertainment.

Gamma (Oak): Can find Aristocrats to be stand-offish, judgmental, morally stiff and emotionally hostile. They often feel that Aristocrats are unable to see the big picture, whether at work or in politics and society at large; kind of socially boring, unable to take a joke, and vindictive. They often don’t do well in groups: Cenobites enjoy making general jokes, while Aristocrats tend to make extremely sharp, personal jokes. Cenobites want to stay together, Aristocrats want everyone to take care of their own needs as they move from group to group, leaving Cenobites feeling that the Aristocrats are trying to break up the fun group. On an individual level, however, they often get along very well; they both see general trends and enjoy comparing predictions.

Delta (Rowan): Cenobites tend to find Explorers to be noncommittal and unwilling to support goals decided in a group, lacking drive and ethics. Explorers prefer not to get involved in group efforts, instead preferring to work on personal projects that are meaningful to them.


How other houses see Cenobites:

Ash: They tend to find Cenobites to be fun, but with a bit of an edge, and inclined to be a bit bossy. They usually give in to Cenobites because they feel the Cenobites care more. They can find Cenobites to be overly rigid and single-minded.

Oak: Find Cenobites to be driven, ambitious people with a sense of purpose, and who get things done. Aristocrats often find the Cenobites’ strong views to be ideological and lacking factual support. They may also feel that they’re are overly concerned with social status and sometimes disingenuous when pursuing their goals.

Rowan: Explorers tend to see Cenobites as people who dream big, and always want to turn everything into a grandiose undertaking, even though they struggle to manage their day-to-day affairs. They tend to dislike what they see as a mean-streak resulting from the Cenobites unwillingness to consider other points of views on topics they feel strongly about.


Yew

Transference, Passage, Illusion

The yew tree is the symbol of immortality and everlasting life; rebirth, changes; regeneration after difficult times; and protection. It’s very strong making it a preferred wood for crafting into bows, spears, and other items. It’s a potent symbol of vitality; its branches grow into the ground so that when the trunk dies the Yew is able to continue living.

It’s quite toxic, often being called the “death tree;” every part of it, except for the red membrane surrounding the seeds, is poisonous. The alkaloid causes effects ranging from vivid hallucinations to death, although this death is viewed as a transformation and rebirth into the other world. The Yew represents both death as well as eternal life. It's imbued with qualities such as power, honor, mystery, strength, and leadership, but also milder traits such as silence, illusion, holiness, and introspection.

The tree is associated with the goddess Badb Catha, goddess of life, enlightenment, wisdom, and inspiration, as well as the goddess of war. The dark, sagacious crow is her animal; Badb Catha means "Battle Crow." She and her two sisters fought on the side of the Tuatha De Danann, the gods of light, against the monstrous Fomorians, turning the tide with her fearful, terrifying magic. In battle she often takes her crow shape, screaming, striking fear into her enemies. Following the Fomorians defeat, instead of predicting doom Badb sang a prophecy of peace:

Peace up to heaven.
Heaven down to earth.
Earth beneath heaven,
Strength in each,
A cup very full,
Full of honey;
Mead in abundance.
Summer in winter.


Enduring realities and legacies as well as that which abides unchanged; the lessons of experience. The union of body and spirit. Age in youth and youth in age; death in birth and rebirth in death. Yin and Yang. Love and death. The wisdom of knowing when to hold on and when to let go. On the deepest level, the Cenobites’ task in the world is to explore the most profound mysteries of the universe, and then, when they find their ideals, fight righteously for them.

In the monastery the ISTP is practicing swordsmanship and writing down techniques and strategies; in the inner gardens are the ESTP and their followers, making a pleasurable and simple life for themselves; in front of the monastery’s doors the ENFJ is speaking to a large gathering of people to hear persuasions to the monastery’s ultimate cause; within the monastery is the INFJ, teaching classes and individuals, but more often taking long, silent, solitary walks to ponder ideas before presenting them.

- Michael Pierce, “Function Axes Categories”  (YouTube)



Posts

The Houses
House Ash
House Oak
House Rowan
Jungian MBTI

“Right” and “wrong”

(Image from Drake University)


In Jungian psychology there is no right or wrong, it’s always “what’s right for you?” Honesty can be a good thing for someone else, but maybe you need to learn protective deception. Being goal oriented can be a good thing but maybe you need to learn to relax and let go. Or vice versa.

Marie-Louise von Franz said that, in fairy tales, there are no consistent rules. Sometimes you must lie, and sometimes you get punished for lying. Sometimes the hard worker gets rewarded, and sometimes it’s the village idiot who does nothing but sit around scratching his butt. (There’s only one rule in fairy tales: never harm the helpful animal.)

This is a symbolic reflection of life; everyone is different so everyone needs to balance themselves in different ways. Maybe a workaholic needs to relax, but a lazy person probably needs to get to work. What’s medicine for one person is poison for another. So, what is the goal of Jungian analysis? The short answer is: individuation. That is, recovering our lost parts and integrating them into our conscious selves.

Jungian psychology says that our conscious selves, our egos, are in relation to just a small fraction of the totality of who we are. Most of “us” is actually in the unconscious, like an iceberg submerged in the ocean. Our task is to bring as much of that iceberg above the waterline as we can. So, in Jungian psychology “good” is consciousness, and “bad” is unconsciousness.

This actually gives Jungian psychology a very clear, though individualistic, parameter. If you do things that increase consciousness, you are doing the right thing. If, on the other hand, you’re doing things that increase unconsciousness you are doing “bad.” If you lash out at someone with your Demon function, or attack them with your Critic, you are increasing unconsciousness. If, on the other hand, you accept your weakness in the form of your Animus, or go into your Nemesis consciously to balance out your ego’s weakness, you increase consciousness.

If we do something that we think is “getting over someone” – passive aggressive behavior, cheating, unloading our anger on someone – we will increase unconsciousness in ourselves. This is bad for us. We’re not “getting over” anyone; the person we’re cheating, and hurting, most is us. And, at the same time, we’re also making the world a worse place, increasing unconsciousness in everyone around us, unless they are strong enough to avoid getting caught up in our bullshit. The world and everyone around us end up worse because of our existence.

This is the crux of the moral question: do I do the hard, painful, and not fun thing required of me to increase consciousness? Or do I do the easy, fun thing that increases unconsciousness? One of Marie-Louise von Franz’s analysands wanted to use active imagination to beat, stab, and kill someone she didn’t like (in her head, not IRL). MLvF immediately told her that this was a terrible idea; it wasn’t active imagination, it was black magic (misusing the unconscious for selfish and harmful purposes). It would not only have halted growth, this analysand would have gone backwards, i.e. they would have become even more neurotic, as neuroticism is basically psychology-speak for unconsciousness.

Another example is an ESFP I know who likes playing mind games with people who he feels deserve it. Unconscious ESFPs and ENFPs, thanks to their Fe Critic, have this problem where they tend to judge the people around them to be immoral. This, they feel, gives them license to be completely immoral themselves. The irony of their Fe Critic is that it can lead them to being some of the most immoral people of all the types, but every type does something similar, thanks to our hypocritical, sanctimonious Critic function. The problem is, this ESFP is hurting himself far more than he’s hurting anyone else, because he’s making himself more unconscious.

All of us have a similar tendency, all of us need to be vigilant and moral in our own lives. To do any less is cheating… and the only person we’re really cheating… is ourselves.


See also
The 8 function model

Reference: Cat hate = misogyny?

So, I just ran across this on Facebook:

roach-works

hey so, as a man who works with other men, here's a quick relationship tip: if he doesn't much like cats, that might just be a personal preference. if he hates cats, if he tells you he hates cats as soon as he hears that you have a cat and love your cat, he's an asshole. he's telling on himself.

every guy i've ever worked with that makes a point of telling me how much he hates cats as soon as i mention that i have a cat and love my cat, is always someone who is regularly cruel for fun and who laughs in the breakroom about the mean things they do for fun to their girlfriends and children

--------------------

luscious-theomorphic

I wish I could articulate all the ways this makes sense and why it makes sense and stuff but it's just like... something something misogyny something something resentment of creatures that don't need you and don't hang on your attention and approval all their lives.

As Marie-Louise von Franz says:

The cat, in contrast to the dog, has never sold its soul to man. It has a kind of egocentric reserve. The cat says, ‘You may stroke me and you may serve me,’ but it never becomes your slave. And if you annoy it, it just walks out on you. In women's dreams, therefore, the cat often is an image of something feminine, independent and sure of itself, just what modern women so often lack. That's why the cat goddess comes up in women's dreams as a positive model of feminine behavior. It is not brutal; it does not display any masculine features. It is feminine and, at the same time, very firm, very identical with itself. The cat is not very amiable, but very true to itself.

(The Way of the Dream)

Also, drawing a connection to serial killers and cult leaders; these brutes hate nothing more than independence in those they're trying to control. For centuries, during the middle ages, women were accused of witchcraft and murdered if they showed affection to animals. This same time saw some of the most horrific torture and murder of cats, and a fear and hatred of them. If someone doesn't like cats that's one thing, but if they hate cats, maybe you should GTFO of there.

Symbolism: Wolf

[An overview will be written at some point in the future.]

 

Posts:

The vulgarity of eating

Reference: The vulgarity of eating

Because wolves are the personification of hunger – one is hungry as a wolf. So when he protects the corpse from the wolves, he [Nietzsche] is protecting it from being eaten by the appetite in himself which he tries to forget. You will remember he says of his hunger before, “And all day it hath failed to come: where hath it been?” This means that he did not realize his hunger for his body; he forgot his body altogether. Therefore, the body died; he overcame it. But the hunger ought to convince him that he should eat his body; then he would return to his humanity and become an ordinary human being. If you want to be an extraordinary human being, don’t eat: people who eat become vulgar. Therefore, many people make a point of not eating before others.

----------

Sipphas [followers of a religious sect] believe that it is indecent to feed before each other, so they turn their backs when they eat, or find a place where nobody sees them. To them it is just as indecent as the opposite functions of the body. Eating before others is understood by many people as a sort of taboo; there is mana in it which can easily turn into its own opposite. And here Zarathustra protects his body against the wolves because he tries to make sure that his sanctity or his superiority shall not become injured through the vulgarity of eating, which would put him down to the level of common humanity. To fill himself with physical matter would make him heavy and he could not dance any longer. He could not fly, he would be fettered to the earth. Therefore, in ascetic forms of religion people refrain from eating in order to attain spirituality; in a certain season of the year, or on certain day of the week, they make themselves light by not filling the stomach. They assume that in eating they consume all the dirt of the earth and are fettered by the earth by the heaviness of the belly. So eating is a sort of symbolism…

- C.G. Jung, Nietzsche's Zarathustra



Symbols:
Food/eating
Body
Earth
Flying
Wolf

See also:
Anorexia Mirabilis

Symbolism: Lion

[An overview will be written at some point in the future.]

 

Posts:

The Green Lion

Reference: "The Fearsome Hunt of Mallt-y-Nos"

Mallt-y-Nos is generally translated as “Matilda of the Night.” However, it is worth noting that “mallt” is part of the words “mallter” and “malltod.” These mean “curse, blight, rotten, putrefaction or blast.” Therefore, the modern Cymricisation of Matilda into Mallt might mask an older meaning and legend; or it might be a play on words. (As an aside “mallt” is a borrow word meaning “malt” in the whiskey sense, but that could probably be discounted here!”

Another name for this entity is Nos Mallt, which makes more sense as Night Curse, than Night Matilda. The folklorist Wirt Sikes certainly thought so, as he transalted her name as “night-fiend.” Sir John Rhys gave an alternative of “the night evil.”


Mallt-y-Nos: The Horror of the Hunt

She stands in a chariot, led by huge, black horses, each with eyes that burned red. She rides at night, using the legendary Cwn Annwn as her pack of hounds; and she would go hunting. Her prey? Those about to die, who would hear them coming – the barking of the dogs and the eerie cry of the crone behind them.

As the individual died, their spirit might encounter the pack and the chase would be on. If she caught them they would be corralled into Annwn. If they escaped, then there was still a chance of Heaven. Some stories state that Mallt-y-Nos didn’t even wait until death to catch her prey. She was quite capable of setting the Cwn Annwn on a living person, watching her victim tore limb from limb, before capturing their soul as it left their body.


Malit-y-Nos: Who was Matilda

Marie Trevelyan recorded two stories. The first was that the Earthly Matilda had been a Norman noblewoman, who had arrived with Fitzhamon from Gloucester to subdue South Wales. Matilda loved to hunt. In fact, she was so passionate about the chase that she stated, “If I cannot hunt in Heaven, I would rather not go there.” Upon her death, the Welsh God of the Otherworld, Arawn, appeared and took her soul. In life, she had been noted for her beauty; in death, she was transformed into a terrifying hag. Matilda was doomed to go hunting for all eternity.

The second is that a young Welsh woman loved hunting, but her betrothed did not approve of such pursuits for ladies. Upon their marriage, he made her promise never to hunt again and she agreed. However, she missed it. For over a year, she yearned to get back into the chase, but her husband forbade it. Then he went away from home for a while and she seized her opportunity. For a whole day, she happily rode with the hunt meet, swearing everyone else to secrecy. Unfortunately for her, the return journey saw her thrown from her horse.

She had a broken leg, when her husband returned home. It didn’t take him long to put two and two together and deduce that she had reneged on her promise. He stormed out of the house to consult a dyn hysbys (trans: wise woman, wizard or cunning man). The two returned to cast incantations, which raised the young woman from the ground and “threw her to the winds.” As a whirlwind took her up, she was evidently rescued by Arawn and placed in the chariot to lead Annwn’s hunt.


Notable sightings of Mallt-y-Nos

Mallt-y-Nos was particularly well known around St. Donat’s Castle, in Glamorgan, where she was said to be hunting for the soul of the pirate, Colyn Dolphyn. This was the subject of a 1837 poem by Taliensin Williams, The Doom of Colyn Dolphyn:

…Her evil eye
Was never rais’d to greet the sky -
She never sought the mirthful plain;
Nor moved in joyous Hymen’s train;
But mutter’d oft, in voice morose;
And peasants called her – Mallt-y-Nos.

- premiumjoker4195, "The Fearsome Hunt of Mallt-y-Nos"

Reference: "We Didn’t Domesticate Dogs. They Domesticated Us."

In the story of how the dog came in from the cold and onto our sofas, we tend to give ourselves a little too much credit. The most common assumption is that some hunter-gatherer with a soft spot for cuteness found some folk puppies and adopted them. Over time, these tamed wolves would have shown their prowess at hunting, so humans kept them around the campfire until they evolved into dogs.

But when we look back at our relationship with wolves throughout history, this doesn't really make sense. For one thing, the wolf was domesticated at a time when modern humans were not very tolerant of carnivorous competitors. In fact, after modern humans arrived in Europe around 43,000 years ago, they pretty much wiped out every large carnivore that existed, including saber-toothed cats and giant hyenas. The fossil record doesn't reveal whether these large carnivores starved to death because modern humans took most of the meat or whether humans picked them off on purpose. Either way, most of the Ice Age bestiary went extinct.

The hunting hypothesis, that humans used wolves to hunt, doesn't hold up either. Humans were already successful hunters without wolves, more successful than every other large carnivore. Wolves eat a lot of meat, as much as one deer per ten wolves every day—a lot for humans to feed or compete against. And anyone who has seen wolves in a feeding frenzy knows that wolves don't like to share.

Humans have a long history of eradicating wolves, rather than trying to adopt them. Over the last few centuries, almost every culture has hunted wolves to extinction. The first written record of the wolf's persecution was in the sixth century B.C. when Solon of Athens offered a bounty for every wolf killed. The last wolf was killed in England in the 16th century under the order of Henry VII. In Scotland, the forested landscape made wolves more difficult to kill. In response, the Scots burned the forests. North American wolves were not much better off. By 1930, there was not a wolf left in the 48 contiguous states of America.  (See "Wolf Wars.")

If this is a snapshot of our behavior toward wolves over the centuries, it presents one of the most perplexing problems: How was this misunderstood creature tolerated by humans long enough to evolve into the domestic dog?

The short version is that we often think of evolution as being the survival of the fittest, where the strong and the dominant survive and the soft and weak perish. But essentially, far from the survival of the leanest and meanest, the success of dogs comes down to survival of the friendliest. (See "People and Dogs: A Genetic Love Story.")

Most likely, it was wolves that approached us, not the other way around, probably while they were scavenging around garbage dumps on the edge of human settlements. The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated.

Friendliness caused strange things to happen in the wolves. They started to look different. Domestication gave them splotchy coats, floppy ears, wagging tails. In only several generations, these friendly wolves would have become very distinctive from their more aggressive relatives. But the changes did not just affect their looks. Changes also happened to their psychology. These protodogs evolved the ability to read human gestures.

As dog owners, we take for granted that we can point to a ball or toy and our dog will bound off to get it. But the ability of dogs to read human gestures is remarkable. Even our closest relatives—chimpanzees and bonobos—can't read our gestures as readily as dogs can. Dogs are remarkably similar to human infants in the way they pay attention to us. This ability accounts for the extraordinary communication we have with our dogs. Some dogs are so attuned to their owners that they can read a gesture as subtle as a change in eye direction.

With this new ability, these protodogs were worth knowing. People who had dogs during a hunt would likely have had an advantage over those who didn't. Even today, tribes in Nicaragua depend on dogs to detect prey. Moose hunters in alpine regions bring home 56 percent more prey when they are accompanied by dogs. In the Congo, hunters believe they would starve without their dogs.

Dogs would also have served as a warning system, barking at hostile strangers from neighboring tribes. They could have defended their humans from predators.

And finally, though this is not a pleasant thought, when times were tough, dogs could have served as an emergency food supply. Thousands of years before refrigeration and with no crops to store, hunter-gatherers had no food reserves until the domestication of dogs. In tough times, dogs that were the least efficient hunters might have been sacrificed to save the group or the best hunting dogs. Once humans realized the usefulness of keeping dogs as an emergency food supply, it was not a huge jump to realize plants could be used in a similar way.

So, far from a benign human adopting a wolf puppy, it is more likely that a population of wolves adopted us. As the advantages of dog ownership became clear, we were as strongly affected by our relationship with them as they have been by their relationship with us. Dogs may even have been the catalyst for our civilization.

- Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, "We Didn’t Domesticate Dogs. They Domesticated Us."

Reference: The Green Lion

The alchemical “green lion” devouring the sun relates to the experience of consciousness being overwhelmed by violent, frustrated desires (often masked by depression)

As the text which I gave you briefly in the last hour says, there is in this lead even the element of madness. This refers to another fact for if you dig up depressive states in people, usually at the bottom there are either creative contents or a violent, unsacrificed desire. Frequently depressed people dream of voracious lions or other devouring animals such as dragons, but particularly lions, which means they are depressed because they are frustrated in the fulfillment of their wild desires. They want everything: to be top dog, have the most beautiful partner, money, and everything else. They have the childish, wild desires which would like to eat everything up, but at the same time they are intelligent enough to know that life is not like that, that they cannot have what they want, so the desire curls up into sulky depressiveness. Such a depression has the quality of sulkily frustrated desire and explains why, after an unhappy love affair, people drop into an awful depression. Their lion has been frustrated and has returned sulking to its lair.

Some people have a frustrated infant within them. Usually they are very correct and polite, and make very few demands on the analyst, but being too polite and correct and considerate is always suspect. One knows they would like to eat up the analyst completely like the lion, making childish demands and scenes, because the analyst has stopped dive minutes before the time, or answered the telephone, or put off the hour, or even had the flu! Such demanding infantile people compensate by being very correct, knowing that if they admit their demands then the devouring lion will come up and the analyst will naturally hit back, something which they have experienced often in life when, after hiding their feelings, they one day took the risk and got banged on the head. So the hurt child retires once more, bitterly frustrated, and then comes the depression, the devouring lion. That is a part of primitive nature, of primitive archaic reactions which have all the conflicts of wanting to eat and not being able to do so, so that the depressive mania takes over.

That is the symbolism of the madness in the lead, but it also contains Osiris, the immortal man, and if only you accept that spot within you, you will come to the creative content where the Self is hidden. The frustrated child could be said to be an aspect covering up an image of the Self, and the devouring lion also an aspect of the Self.

If you take the image of the devouring lion this is quite clear. If I think I ought to be top dog everywhere, have the most beautiful partner, have money, be happy, and so on, that is a paradise fantasy, and what is that? It is a projection of the Self! So actually, the childish thing is the desire to experience everything in the here and now. The fantasy in itself is entirely legitimate, it has the idea of the coniunctio, a perfect state, a state of harmony. It is a religious idea, but naturally if projected onto outside life and wanted there, in the here and now, that is impossible. The *way* in which the person wants to realize the fantasy is childish, but in itself it is valuable and has nothing wrong or unhealthy about it.

So just in that undominated mad spot of the person, or the wild or problematic spot, there is the symbol of the Self. That gives it the drive, which is why people never know what to do for they cannot repress it; or if they are reasonable and just give the thing up and realize how childish it is and that one should be resigned and adapt to life then they feel that they are cured but that they have been robbed of their best possibilities and so are frustrated.

- Marie Louise von Franz, “Alchemy: An Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology”

Reference: "The Wild Hunt"

This spectral, nocturnal horde was the “Wild Hunt,” which was recorded in folklore all throughout ancient, medieval, and even early modern Europe, but was especially concentrated in the Germanic lands of northern Europe. In Scandinavia, it was called Oskoreia, “Terrifying Ride,” or Odensjakt, “Odin’s Hunt.” In Middle High German, it was called Wuotanes Her, “Odin’s Army,” and in modern German Wütende Heer, “Furious/Inspired Army,” or Wilde Jagd, “Wild Hunt.”

It swept through the forests in midwinter, the coldest, darkest part of the year, when ferocious winds and storms howled over the land. Anyone who found him- or herself out of doors at night during this time might spot this ghostly procession – or be spotted by it, which might involve being carried away and dropped miles from where the unfortunate person had been taken up, or worse. Others, practitioners of various forms of magic, joined in it voluntarily, as an intangible part of them (a “soul,” if you like) flew with the cavalcade while their bodies lay in their beds as if sleeping normally. Sometimes, the members of the Hunt entered towns and houses, causing havoc and stealing food and drink.


The Leader of the Wild Hunt

When accounts of the Wild Hunt mention a leader, the figure who filled this role varied greatly. In Germany, the leader could have been “Perchta, Berhta, Berta, Holt, Holle, Hulda, Foste, Selga, Selda, Heme, Herla, Berchtold [or] Berhtolt.”

However, as the Wild Hunt’s various names across the Germanic lands attest, one figure was especially closely associated with it: Odin, the god of the dead, inspiration, ecstatic trance, battle frenzy, knowledge, the ruling class, and creative and intellectual pursuits in general. Two of Odin’s hundreds of names further demonstrate his association with midwinter, the time of the year in which the holiday Yule (Old Norse Jól) falls: Jólnir and Jauloherra, both of which mean something like “Master of Yule.” The myths describe him frequently riding throughout the Nine Worlds on his eight-legged steed, Sleipnir, on quests of a shamanic nature, another theme that connects him to the Wild Hunt. As H.R. Ellis Davidson put it, speaking of the manifestations of the Wild Hunt that continued well into the Christian era, “it was natural that the ancient god of the dead who rode through the air should keep a place in this way in the memory of the people, and it reminds us of the terror which his name must once have inspired.”


Conclusion

In the body of lore surrounding the Wild Hunt, we find a number of themes that connect it powerfully with the dead and the underworld. For one thing, there’s the ghostly character of the hunters or warriors themselves. Dogs and horses, animals that were closely associated with death (amongst a great many other things), were almost invariably present. In some accounts of the Hunt, the riders can hardly, if at all, be distinguished from land spirits, who were themselves often conflated with the dead, as if the two were thought of as being in some sense one and the same. Finally, for the ancient Germanic peoples, the worlds of the living and the dead were especially permeable during midwinter, which goes a long way toward explaining why this troop of apparitions haunted the land during that particular part of the year. In the words of Claude Lecouteux, “[T]he Wild Hunt fell into the vast complex of ancestor worship, the cult of the dead, who are the go-betweens between men and the gods.”

It was as if the very elements of midwinter – the menacing cold, the almost unrelenting darkness, the eerie, desolate silence broken only by the baying winds and galloping storms – manifested the restless dead, and the ancient northern Europeans, whose ways of life and worldviews predisposed them to sense the spiritual qualities in the world around them, recorded the sometimes terrifying fruits of such an engagement with the more-than-human world in their accounts of the Wild Hunt.

- Daniel McCoy, "The Wild Hunt"

Reference: The Cadejo

The cadejo is a supernatural character from Central American and southern Mexican folklore. There is a good white cadejo and an evil black cadejo. Both are spirits that appear at night to travelers: the white to protect them from harm during their journey, the black (sometimes an incarnation of the devil) to kill them. The colors of the cadejo are sometimes exchanged according to local tradition. In some places, the black cadejo is seen as the good one and the white cadejo the evil one. They usually appear in the form of a large (up to the size of a cow), shaggy dog with burning red eyes and a goat's hooves, although in some areas they have more bull-like characteristics. According to the stories, many have tried to kill the black cadejo but have failed and perished. It is also said that if a cadejo is killed, it will smell terrible for several days, and then its body will disappear. Some Salvadoran folklore also tells of a cadejo that guards drunks against anyone who tries to rob or hurt them. When the cadejo is near, it is said to bring about a strong goat-like smell. Most people say never to turn your back to the creature because otherwise you will go crazy. Speaking to the cadejo will also induce insanity.

In popular etymology, the name cadejo is thought to have derived from the Spanish word "cadena", meaning "chain"; the cadejo is at times represented as dragging a chain behind him…

In El Salvador, the dog-like creature is known as El Cadejo, is said to look like a dog but is not a dog, has deer-like hooves and also moves like a deer, rather than a dog. The white Cadejos are known to be benevolent and eat bell-like flowers that only grows on volcanoes. The white Cadejo protects people including drunks, vagabonds, and people with grudges from all evil footsteps and even La Siguanaba, and bad choices which are sometimes caused by the evil black Cadejo. The black Cadejo is malevolent and lures people to make bad choices. The black Cadejo has glowing red eyes and eats new born puppies and sometimes the black Cadejo is said to be the devil himself. The black Cadejo is said to be able to stand on two feet like a man and swiftly throw punches on its victims, letting them know that they are no ordinary dog. The novel "Los perros magicos de los volcanes" (Magic Dogs of the Volcanoes) by Manilo Argueta, describes the Cadejos as mythical dog-like creatures that figure prominently in the folklore of El Salvador. They mysteriously appear at night and lovingly protect the villagers who live on the slopes of the volcanoes from danger.

------------------------------

The cadejo ranges in size according to different tales in various regions. It lurks in graveyards and dark alleys, waiting to attack a passing victim. It has a distinctive smell of concentrated urine and burning sulphur. It rattles with a jerking motion, contracting its pharynx. Its gaze freezes anyone who makes eye contact. It glitters in the pitch dark with skin and short hair, similar to that of a pig.

There are three types of black cadejos:

The first is the devil himself in the form of a large, wounded dog with hoofed feet that are bound with red-hot chains. It is said that not even the white cadejo is able to completely stop him. Unlike the regular black cadejo it is not likely to pursue and attack a passing person, as it is a scout - the eyes of evil…

The second type of cadejo is the regular cadejo, the mysterious evil dog. It kills and savagely tears through its victim. First it demoralizes him with a series of sounds and other signs that it is nearby. Then, after the victim is scared, it leaps forward, and will kill him if the white cadejo is not near.

The final, and least powerful type of black cadejo is the offspring of a normal dog and the "regular" cadejo. It is a mortal hybrid and can (with difficulty) be killed by a strong man (bearing in mind that most men in those regions only carry a machete for protection). Once dead, it will completely rot in a matter of seconds, leaving behind a stain of evil, on which grass and moss will never grow again. This cadejo will never bite its victim. Instead, he kicks and pecks them with his snout. After this happens, people say "Lo jugó el cadejo" which means "he/she was handled by the cadejo". The victim goes mad. This term is sometimes applied to people that are born with a mental illness.

A fairly popular version of the legend in El Salvador talks about two brothers who walk into the house of a black magician. During a storm, he asks the boys to help him with some logs for a fire. Both boys slack on the job but eat the man's food. Once he finds out the little bit of food he had is missing and that there is not enough wood for his fire, he puts a curse on the road that leads to the boys' village. Voices bother the boys and when they turn their backs on the voices they get turned into creatures: a white cadejo and a black one. After going back to their village in their cursed form they get kicked out and have no choice but to wander.

- "Cadejo" (Wikipedia)

Reference: Popol Vuh

Hurricane makes a great rain.
 It rains all day and rains all night.
 There is a terrible flood
 and the earth is blackened.
 The creatures of the forest
 come into the homes of the doll-people.

"You have chased us from our homes
 so now we will take yours,"
 they growl.
 And their dogs and turkeys cry out,
 "You have abused us
 so now we shall eat you!"
 Even their pots and grinding stones speak,
 "We will burn you and pound on you
 just as you have done to us!"

The wooden people scatter into the forest.
 Their faces are crushed,
 and they are turned into monkeys.
 And this is why monkeys look like humans.
 They are what is left of what came before.

- The Popol Vuh (Mayan creation story)

Reference: Saluki; guardian of paradise

Sometimes referred to as Guardian Dogs, they are more commonly called Watchdogs. In Christian mythology one of the oldest of oral stories is that of "The Seven Sleepers." The story dates back to A.D. 750 and tells of seven youths near the city of Ephesus, which is near the coast of Asia Minor. This story is related to the Arabic epigram that says, "A greedy person is one who would not throw a bone to the dog of the seven sleepers."

The watchdog of the seven was thought to be a Saluki. It guarded seven teenagers who were fleeing for their lives during the realm of Emperor Decius sometime around A.D. 250. The Koran tells of the youths' long uninterrupted sleep -- 309 years -- during which time they were constantly watched over by the great Saluki guard dog whose four legs stretched across the mouth of the cave where the boys slept. It is said that the dog spoke to the boys in a prophetic voice saying that he loved those who also loved God or Allah, and that he would watch over them.

This famous story earned the Saluki the right to enter paradise. One interpretation states that the story of the seven sleepers harkens back to ancient Egypt and the dog so named is an emissary between the worlds of life and death, a reference to Anubis.

- Gerald Hausman, "Dogs, Ancient and Modern: A Mythological History"

Reference: Dogs among the Aztecs, Tarascans, and Mayans

Similar inscriptions in the surviving Mayan Codices depict the dog as the bringer of fire to the people and, in the Quiche Maya holy book, the Popol Vuh, dogs are instrumental in the destruction of the ungrateful and unknowing race of humans which the gods first produced and then repented of.

The Aztecs and Tarascans shared this view of the dog, including the dog as a guide to the afterlife for the deceased. The Aztecs also had a story in their mythology regarding the destruction of an early race of human beings in which dogs are featured. In this tale, the gods drown the world in a great flood but a man and woman manage to survive by clinging to a log. Once the waters recede, they climb onto dry land and build a fire to dry themselves. The smoke from this fire annoys the great god Tezcatlipoca who tears off their heads and then sews the heads to the rear-ends of the man and woman and, in doing so, creates dogs. According to this myth, dogs pre-date the present race of human beings and so should be treated with respect the way one would treat an elder. The Aztecs also buried dogs with their dead and their god of death, Xolotl, was imagined as a huge dog.

The Tarascans, like the Aztecs and Maya, kept dogs as pets, for hunting, and for food and also linked them with the gods and the afterlife. The souls of those who died without proper burial, such as those who drowned or were lost in battle or died alone on a hunt, were found by spirit dogs who would ensure their safe passage to the afterlife. In all three of these cultures (as, indeed, in the others mentioned above) the belief in ghosts was very real. A ghost could not only make trouble in one's daily life but could actually bring physical harm and even death. The Tarascan tale about the spirit dogs allayed the fear that, if one had not been able to properly bury a loved one, the deceased's ghost would return to trouble the living. The people would not have to fear because the dog would take care of the problem.

Joshua J. Mark, "Dogs in the Ancient World"

Reference: Gelert, protection (dog)

Another great historical/mythical dog guardian is Gelert. Again, with this story, there is a proverb: "To repent as deeply as the man who killed his dog." The Welsh phrase comes from a 13th century folktale which tells of Prince Llewelyn's favorite wolfhound, Gelert. One day the prince was hunting and he noticed that Gelert was not at his side. Returning home, the prince was greeted at the door by his wolfhound who had a blood-red mouth. Inside, the prince saw his son's cradle overturned, and the house in total disarray.

Thinking his dog had killed his son, Llewelyn drew his sword and slew Gelert. Then he heard an infant cry from under the cradle. At the same time, he caught sight of a dead wolf in the corner of the hall.

Grief-stricken, Llewelyn built a stately tomb for his brave dog. And so it was that the village Beddgelert, which means Gelert's Grave, received both a name and a saying; one that has survived through the ages.

- Gerald Hausman, "Dogs, Ancient and Modern: A Mythological History"

Reference: Rukaba, guardian of fire

Our dog heroes include the one who first brought fire to humankind. This dog's mythical name was Rukuba, guardian of fire. The story goes that on the first morning of the world, no one knew what gods ruled the earth. They only knew that they were part of everything, and everything was part of them.

So in this world of wonders, a man named Nkhango went out exploring and the first thing he saw was something that sparkled. In front of it was a four-footed person with long ears. "What strangeness is this?" Nkhango asked.

"I am Rukuba, guardian of fire, but I am also called Dog."

Nkhango saw that the sparkly thing was hungry and that it clamored for food. Rukuba got up from where he sat and reaching into a pile of dry sticks, fed the thing. It ate quickly and grew brighter.

Nkhango asked Rukuba, "What is the thing you are feeding?"

"Fire," Rukuba answered.

And so began, African storytellers say, the earliest friendship between man and dog. However, in the passage of time, the two became inseparable.

- Gerald Hausman, "Dogs, Ancient and Modern: A Mythological History"

Reference: Argos; loyalty (dog)

In Homer's Odyssey, Argos is Odysseus' faithful dog. After ten years fighting in Troy, followed by ten more years struggling to get home to Ithaca, Odysseus finally arrives at his homeland. In his absence, reckless suitors have taken over his house in hopes of marrying his wife Penelope. In order to secretly re-enter his house to ultimately spring a surprise attack on the suitors, Odysseus disguises himself as a beggar, and only his son Telemachos is told of his true identity. As Odysseus approaches his home, he finds Argos lying neglected on a pile of cow manure, infested with fleas, old and very tired. This is a sharp contrast to the dog Odysseus left behind; Argos used to be known for his speed and strength and his superior tracking skills. Unlike everyone else, including Eumaios, a lifelong friend, Argos recognizes Odysseus at once and he has just enough strength to drop his ears and wag his tail but cannot get up to greet his master. Unable to greet his beloved dog, as this would betray who he really was, Odysseus passes by (but not without shedding a tear) and enters his hall, and Argos dies. The simplicity of the relationship between Argos and Odysseus allows their reunion to be immediate and sincere.

- "Argos (dog)" (Wikipedia)

Reference: Dogs in Zoroastrianism

In Zoroastrianism, the dog is regarded as an especially beneficent, clean and righteous creature, which must be fed and taken care of. The dog is praised for the useful work it performs in the household, but it is also seen as having special spiritual virtues. A dog's gaze is considered to be purifying and to drive off daevas (demons). It is also believed to have a special connection with the afterlife: the Chinwad Bridge to Heaven is said to be guarded by dogs in Zoroastrian scripture, and dogs are traditionally fed in commemoration of the dead. Ihtiram-i sag, "respect for the dog", is a common injunction among Iranian Zoroastrian villagers.

Detailed prescriptions for the appropriate treatment of dogs are found in the Vendidad (a subdivision of the Zoroastrian holy scripture Avesta), especially in chapters 13, 14 and 15, where harsh punishments are imposed for harm inflicted upon a dog and the faithful are required to assist dogs, both domestic and stray, in various ways; often, help or harm to a dog is equated with help and harm to a human. The killing of a dog ("a shepherd's dog, or a house-dog, or a Vohunazga [i.e. stray] dog, or a trained dog") is considered to lead to damnation in the afterlife. A homeowner is required to take care of a pregnant dog that lies near his home at least until the puppies are born (and in some cases until the puppies are old enough to take care of themselves, namely six months). If the homeowner does not help the dog and the puppies come to harm as a result, "he shall pay for it the penalty for wilful murder", because "Atar (Fire), the son of Ahura Mazda, watches as well (over a pregnant dog) as he does over a woman". It is also a major sin if a man harms a dog by giving it bones that are too hard and become stuck in its throat, or food that is too hot, so that it burns its throat. Giving bad food to a dog is as bad as serving bad food to a human.The believers are required to take care of a dog with a damaged sense of smell, to try to heal it "in the same manner as they would do for one of the faithful" and, if they fail, to tie it lest it should fall into a hole or a body of water and be harmed.

Both according to the Vendidad and in traditional Zoroastrian practice, dogs are allotted some funerary ceremonies analogous to those of humans. In the Vendidad, it is stated that the spirits of a thousand deceased dogs are reincarnated in a single otter ("water dog"), hence the killing of an otter is a terrible crime that brings drought and famine upon the land and must be atoned either by the death of the killer[23] or by the killer performing a very long list of deeds considered pious, including the healing of dogs, raising of puppies, paying of fines to priests, as well as killing of animals considered noxious and unholy (cats, rats, mice and various species of reptiles, amphibians, and insects).

Sagdid is a funeral ceremony in which a dog is brought into the room where the body is lying so that it can look on it. “Sagdid” means “dog sight” in the Middle Persian language of Zoroastrian theological works. There are various spiritual benefits thought to be obtained by the ceremony. It is believed that the original purpose was to make certain that the person was really dead, since the dog’s more acute senses would be able to detect signs of life that a human might miss. A “four-eyed” dog, that is one with two spots on its forehead, is preferred for sagdid.

The traditional rites involving dogs have been under attack by reformist Zoroastrians since the mid-19th century, and they had abandoned them completely by the late 20th century. Even traditionalist Zoroastrians tend to restrict such rites to a significant extent nowadays (late 20th - early 21st century).

- "Dogs in religion" (Wikipedia)

Reference: “Dogs make us human”

But a study by Robert K. Wayne and his colleagues at UCLA of DNA variability in dogs found that dogs had to have diverged from wolves as a separate population 135,000 years ago. The reason the fossil record doesn’t show any dogs with humans before 14,000 years ago is probably that before then people were partnered with wolves, or with wolves that were evolving into dogs. Sure enough, fossil records do show lots of wolf bones close to human bones before 100,000 years ago.

If Dr. Wayne is right, wolves and people were together at the point when homo sapiens had just barely evolved from homo erectus. When wolves and humans first joined together people only had a few rough tools to their name, and they lived in very small nomadic bands that probably weren’t any more socially complicated than a band of chimpanzees…

This means that when wolves and people first started keeping company they were on a lot more equal footing than dogs and people are today. Basically, two different species with complementary skills teamed up together, something that had never happened before and has really never happened since.

Going over all the evidence, a group of Australian anthropologists believes that during all those years when early humans were associating with wolves they learned to act and think like wolves. Wolves hunted in groups; humans didn’t. Wolves had loyal same-sex and nonkin friendships; humans probably didn’t, judging by the lack of same-sex and nonkin friendships in every other primate species today. (The main relationship for chimpanzees is parent-child.) Wolves were highly territorial; humans probably weren’t – again, judging by how nonterritorial all other primates are today.

By the time these early people became truly modern, they had learned to do all these wolfie things. When you think about how different we are from other primates, you see how doglike we are. A lot of the things we do that the other primates don’t are dog things. The Australian group thinks it was the dogs who showed us how.

They take their line of reasoning even further. Wolves, and then dogs, gave early humans a huge survival advantage, they say, by serving as lookouts and guards, and by making it possible for humans to hunt big game in groups instead of hunting small prey as individuals. Given everything wolves did for early man, dogs were probably the big reason why early man survived and Neanderthals didn’t. Neanderthals didn’t have dogs.

But dogs didn’t just help people stay alive long enough to reproduce. Dogs also made it possible for humans to pull ahead of all their primate cousins. Paul Tacon, principal research scientist at the Australian Museum, says that the development of human friendship “was a tremendous survival advantage because that speeds up the exchange of ideas between groups of people.” All cultural evolution is based on cooperation, and humans learned from dogs how to cooperate with people they aren’t related to.

Maybe the most amazing new finding is that wolves didn’t just teach us a lot of useful new behaviors. Wolves probably also changed the structure of our brains. Fossil records show that whenever a species becomes domesticated its brain gets smaller. The horse’s brain shrank by 16 percent; the pig’s brain shrank as much as 34 percent; and the dogs’s brain shrank 10 to 30 percent. This probably happened because once humans started to take care of these animals, they no longer needed various brain functions in order to survive. I don’t know what functions they lost, but I do know all domestic animals have reduced fear and anxiety compared to wild animals.

Now archaeologists have discovered that 10,000 years ago, just at the point when humans began to give their dogs formal burials, the human brain began to shrink, too. It shrank by 10 percent, just like the dog’s brain. And what’s interesting is what part of the human brain shrank. In all of the domestic animals the forebrain, which holds the frontal lobes, and corpus callosum, which is the connecting tissue between the two sides of the brain, shrank. But in humans it was the midbrain, which handles emotions and sensory data, and the olfactory bulbs, which handle smell, that got smaller while the corpus callosum and the forebrain stayed pretty much the same. Dog brains and human brains specialized: humans took over the planning and organizing tasks, and dogs took over the sensory tasks. Dogs and people coevolved and became even better partners, allies, and friends.

Grandin, 304-306 ("Dogs Make us Human," from Geek Buffet)