160 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
while sahaja, born with the limbs of Prajapati, conveys the same meaning
as mainyutastem. The coincidence between these verses cannot be acci dental, and it appears to me that the sacred thread must be derived from
the belt of Orion. Upavita, from ve to weave, literally means a piece of
cloth and not a thread. It appears, therefore, that a cloth worn round the
waist was the primitive form of yajnopavita, and that the idea of sacredness
was introduced by the theory that it was to be a symbolic representation
of Prajapati’s waistcloth or belt.”
This explanation by Mr. Tilak is no doubt very interesting. But it does not help to explain some of the difficulties. It does not explain the relation of the Yajnopavita to the two garments the Uttariya, and the vasa, which are necessary for a person to wear while undergoing Upanayana. Was the Yajnopavita in addition to the two garments? If so, how is it that there is no mention of it in the early description of the ceremony of the Upanayana? It does not explain another difficulty. If that thread is a substitute for the cloth, how is it that the wearing of the cloth is retained in the Upanayana?
There seems to be another explanation. I offer it for what it is worth. According to it, the wearing of the thread had to do with the adoption of the gotra. Its object was to tie oneself to a particular gotra. It had nothing to do with the Upanayana as such, the object of which was to initiate a person in the study of the Vedas. It is not sufficiently realized that under the Ancient Aryan Law, a son did not naturally inherit the gotra of his father. The father had to perform a special ceremony to give his gotra to his son. It is only when this ceremony was performed that the son became the same gotra as the father. In this connection, reference may be made to two rules observed by the Indo-Aryan Society. One is the rule of impurities. The other is the rule of adoption. With regard to the rule of impurity, brought about by death, the days of impurity vary with the kinship with the dead. If the kinship is very close, the days of impurity are greater than those in the case where the kinship is less close. The impurities attached to the death of a boy who has not been invested with the thread are very meagre, [1] not extending for more than a few days. With regard to the rule of adoption, [2] it lays down that a boy who was invested with the thread was not eligible for adoption. What is the idea behind these rules? The idea seems to be quite clear. The impurities are nominal because there being no thread, the boy had not formally entered into the gotra of his father. Adoption means
See Manu Smriti, Chapter V, Verses 66-70,
Kalikapurana quoted by Vyavahara Mayukha, edited by Kane, p. 114. This plea hat been taken in various cases in Courts by litigants to which Mr. Kane makes references.