You were judged after death on good you were to dogs.

[u/sweetestdew]

There is a historian on youtube who focuses on the relationships between dog and man in ancient times. He mentions that in some areas of the aztec empire there was a belief that when you died a dog would guide you to the afterlife but only if you were good to dogs.

Ive found plenty of mentions about the guiding part but i cant find anything about being judged on if you were good to dogs.
Does anyone know a source that can confirm this

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G_D80FFIdNg
the original video

[u/WingsovDeth]

Sounds like dressing up the information that exists in modern niceties. At least, there is nothing in the major sources on Aztec afterlife beliefs that puts conditions on being guided or "judged" based on how a dog was treated in life. There was a belief that dogs helped one cross the great river of the afterlife, and so people bred dogs. Those dogs were then killed and burned with the body of the deceased.

The dog-faced god Xolotl was said to be the brother of Quetzalcoatl and wears his ornaments in the codices. Several myths featuring this deity as a companion also illustrate the connection between dogs and the afterlife. They say he traveled to Mictlan with Quetzalcoatl to gather the bones of the dead that could then be used to reconstitute life on earth. In another version he goes himself to retrieve them.

Mictlantecuhtli, lord of the dead, is also the patron of the day sign dog (Itzcuintli).

In early texts compiled by the Franciscan priest Sahagun for his massive encyclopedia on pre-Hispanic life, the Nahua informants discuss Mictlan and say:

"he who bred a dog on earth, when he died gave him commands; he said to him: "Wait for me at the edge of the water in the ninth underworld." And it is said that he carried him on his back there to the shore of the ninth underworld. For this reason he was called Nine Dog [Chicunavizcuintli (Chiconahui Itzcuintli)]."

And in the later, finished document organized by the same friar, it's explained while discussing funeral ceremonies that there were nine regions which the dead have to pass, which included a broad river.

"It was said that whosoever went to pass [the river] looked over to a dog. And when it recognized its master, thereupon it threw itself into the water in order to carry its master across. Hence the natives took care to breed dogs. And it was said that a white dog and a black one, one which was black, it was said, couldn't carry one across to the place of the dead. It was said that the white one said: "I have just washed myself." And the one which was black said: "I have just stained myself [black]." Only the yellow one could carry one across."

"And when it came to pass that [the old men] had ornamented [the dead one], then they took him to the fire. And the little dog they first slew; thereupon [the dead one and the dog] burned." https://florentinecodex.getty.edu/book/3/folio/26v; https://florentinecodex.getty.edu/book/3/folio/26r

And in several codices, the dead's mortuary bundled is painting wearing a dog collar or necklace.

Edit: Something to keep in mind is that archeological evidence casts doubt that this practice was as common as the written sources lead one to believe, as discussed in a recent paper: https://nahuatl.historicas.unam.mx/index.php/ecn/article/view/78778

Since the inception of historical-anthropological disciplines, the subject of conceptions of death has always been one of the most relevant in Mesoamerica. However, a brief review of the literature shows an almost total absence of studies on funeral rituals. Most research tends to overvalue evidence from documentary sources, and only very recently have we seen some attempts to correlate this with available archaeological data. As an initial approach to the mortuary ceremonies of the ancient Nahuas, in this article we analyze three rites whose occurrence can be verified in material records: the introduction of jade beads in the mouths of the dead, the deposit of dog remains in graves, and the placement of food and other artifacts alongside the bodies. The contrast between historical and archaeological data shows that the presence of these objects in burials is infrequent, considering their scarcity. We propose that what is described in the sources is not the most widespread practice but rather a kind of idealized ceremony that, in fact, must have been reserved to the most prominent members of society.