Brahmins didn’t always wear the sacred thread.

They adopted it at the start of the

Common Era [ 03 Oct 2024 ]

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/opinion/brahmins-didn-t-always-wear-the-sacred-
thread-they-adopted-it-at-the-start-of-the-common-era/ar-AA1rzoFw?
ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=59e174789b83470584b90ae69e51ad6c&ei=103#

There is a saying that goes: In life, familiarity breeds contempt. But in

scholarship, familiarity breeds acceptance. This is an adage to which I
wholeheartedly subscribe. Unfortunately, such acceptance does not always remain
within the ivory towers of academia; it often seeps into popular imagination,
infects common discourse, and is frequently transformed into common sense in
statements that begin with, “Everybody knows…”

Much of the common wisdom about ancient India, I am afraid, is highly suspect,
especially the view that ideas and institutions have existed since the hoary past,
from time immemorial. The Sanskrit term sanātana, much in vogue these days, has
been co–opted to express these views. Today, I want to debunk some of these
presuppositions in the hope that more people—not just scholars—will question what
is peddled as received wisdom. To do this, we must subject these cultural
constructs to historical and philological scrutiny.

For starters, let us examine what is undoubtedly the most central and ubiquitous
concept in all of Indian civilisation, irrespective of time, region, language, or
religion: dharma (pronounced dhamma in Prakrit dialects such as Pali). As explored
in the book Dharma: Studies in its Semantic, Cultural, and Religious History, which
is the first in-depth inquiry into the term, ‘dharma’ was coined by the poets of
the Rig Veda in the second half of the second millennium BCE. At that time, it was
a neologism. Yet, dharma did not become a central theological concept for quite
some time, certainly not until after the late Vedic texts, including the
Upanishads, which emerged in the middle of the first millennium BCE.

The history of dharma took a dramatic turn when it was first adopted by Buddhists
to label the salvific knowledge discovered by the Buddha, making it one of the
three ‘gems’ of Buddhism: Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. Furthermore, in the middle of
the third century BCE, the term was co–opted by King Ashoka as the central concept
of the new moral philosophy articulated in his inscriptions. It was probably during
this period that dharma began to occupy a central position in Brahmanical
theological writings as well. Brahmin theologians began to compose texts on dharma,
titled ‘Dharmashastra’. However, the complete history and the many vicissitudes of
dharma are still to be written.

Hidden history
The Dharmashastras were meant principally for the three upper social classes or
varnas. These were labeled ‘twice-born’ (dvija or dvijati), and the reason given is
that they were born first from their mothers and a second time through the rite of
Vedic initiation called upanayana. Most history books on ancient India and
introductions to Hinduism portray the concept of twice-born as an integral part of
the varna system. This is what Professor AL Basham said in his justly famous book
The Wonder That Was India (page 139):
“A sharp distinction was made between the three higher classes and the Śūdra. The
former were twice-born (dvija), once at their natural birth and again at their
initiation, when they are invested with the sacred thread and received into Āryan
society.”
But scratch the surface of this socio-religious category, and we uncover its
startling hidden history. A bit of philology regarding the word dvija shows that
this term is anything but old, at least with this meaning. It is absent from the
entire Vedic corpus, making its dramatic appearance only in the late second century
BCE in the Dharmasūtra of Gautama (10.1). The term is also absent in the earliest
Dharmasūtra, that of Apastamba (3rd c. BCE), and even in the great commentary of
the grammarian Patañjali, dated to the middle of the second century BCE. So, the
word dvija—along with the theology surrounding it—was an invention that can be
traced to the late second century BCE at the earliest.
The recovery of the linguistic history of dvija permits us to ask further
historical and sociological questions. What social, political, and religious
factors emerged during the second century BCE that provided the context and
incentive for the creation of this neologism and its accompanying theology? Note
that this was about a century after Ashoka and his radical religious reforms, which
questioned the theory of Brahmanical exceptionalism and ignored the significance of
social hierarchy represented by the system of four varṇas. What the dvija ideology
did was to separate the upper classes of society from the lower ones, elevating the
position of the Brahmin as the dvija par excellence. Historians and sociologists,
building on philological insights, may want to explore why this ideology was
invented at this precise time and why and how it came to dominate Brahmanical
social thought over the centuries.

The sacred thread

Then there is the ritual of Vedic initiation or upanayana itself, which is thought
to constitute that second birth. This rite has been practiced for many centuries
without any connection to such a second birth until the time of Gautama. It is
still prevalent, especially among Brahmins. In common speech, it is often referred
to as the ‘thread ceremony’, because the sacred thread or cord is placed over the
left shoulder of the boy. This cord is called brahmasutra, yajnopavita, or simply
upavita. Wearing the sacred thread is the visible mark of a Brahmin. So, it may
come as a surprise that early descriptions of this ritual do not mention the
investiture of such a thread at all. The great scholar of the Dharmashastras, PV
Kane, expressed his surprise: “It is remarkable that Ashvalayana, Apastamba, and
several other [authors of Grihyasutras] do not say a word about the sacred thread.”
(History of Dharmaśāstra, 1962-75, II: 284).

In fact, a central feature of the rite in its early descriptions involves tying a
girdle around the waist of the boy being initiated, not the investiture of a
thread. The term yajnopavita or upavita is used instead to refer to how the upper
garment, usually a long shawl, is worn during various ritual activities; it was not
worn permanently. The modern ‘thread’ is a stand-in for the upper garment and was
meant to be worn always. This practice probably came into vogue around the
beginning of the Common Era and is first described in the Baudhayana Dharmasutra.
So, this mark of Brahmanical identity was invented at a particular time in history,
and again historians and sociologists need to investigate the social and political
circumstances that led to the adoption of the sacred thread as part of the Vedic
initiation ceremony and as a visible sign of a man’s twice-born identity.

What I have provided is just a sample of a much wider phenomenon. When we scratch
below the surface, many so-called immemorial or even eternal ideas, customs, and
institutions are found to have historical origins in defined times and spaces.
Frequently, their architects take pains to hide these recent origins, presenting
them in the garb of eternality.

Looking at modern scholarship, we see an interesting circularity. Many of these

institutions were invented by Brahmanical authors. Early Western scholars, working
during the colonial era, used these texts to present the ‘history’ of ancient
Indian culture and religion, now clad in scholarly garb. These modern scholarly
introductions seeped into both Western and Indian popular imagination and
understanding. The myth of an ‘unchanging India’ has infected not only the Western
imagination but also, curiously, nationalistic discourse within India itself.
Patrick Olivelle is Professor Emeritus of Asian Studies at the University of Texas
at Austin. He is known for his work on early Indian religions, law, and statecraft.
Views are personal.

(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)