Janivara .... The sacred thread

'Janivara", the sacred thread is a composition of 3 threads, signifying Goddesses Gayatri (thought), Saraswati (word) and Savitri (deed) respectively. Wearing the sacread thread, is to indicate a practitioner of this principle (like black coat of a lawyer).  'Thought', 'Words' and 'Deed' has to be in synchronized form, that is the core idea. Western saying is 'Do what you say, and say what you do'. Idea of sacred thread, goes one step further "Think before what you say & do, Do what you think and say, Say what you think and do, Then think it all over again for improvement".  Is it not convincing to practice this 'idea' with personal commitment and honesty by wearing the sacred thread, than with a blind 'Gayathri & Sandhyavandane'? It has become a mocking subject because, no body teaches on real objective, but insist on blind process. Can anyone wearing a black coat becomes a Lawyer? It is definitely a joke, if common people run around in courts wearing black coats and thinking themselves as lawyers. They are even quarrelling, which author & version of the book they are holding, without ever reading it or understanding original constitution & Laws for which those books are written as commentaries.  It takes serious proportions, when a mad man wears a white coat and insists to do a heart transplant on you. Today's reality is close to this situation.

By the way, it is 3 threads and applicable to all adults (not just brahmins). When started women also practiced it. 

And very important Rigveda reference for women threading...

Due to children, women could not cope up with the objective. They consulted the best of the best and decided to transfer the responsibility to husbands, as they are the elders of family. So, men wear 6 threads with double responsibility ( one set for self and another set for better half). Today, time has come to return back the 3 threads to women, as they want equality. It will be less burden for men :-).

Humans need symbols, customs etc for perception, for reminding oneself and to be focused. Corporate companies write their aims and objectives every where (be it internet, share report or the last slide of every presentation ...to show their identity). If god is everywhere, why one needs a temple and that too an idol in a temple? You may be great....but other people need them. My argument is 'know the objective' first. As long as you understand...you can have your own mantra or a way to keep focused on the objective. Gayatri says...Dhio yona prachodayat..meaning let the divine inspire our thoughts. As I said in the beginning, If thoughts are pure and focussed, your deeds and saying will follow. If you think, gayathri is enough for you..so be it.. Sringeri jagadguru doesnot wear 'sacread thread'. It is not applicable to sadhus. It is not applicable as they have understood the original meaning, so that they do not need these symbols and practices. There is no rule that, sringeri jagatguru needs to be a brahmin.
Janivara length is 96 times the width of 4 fingers. 96 itself the 24 x 4 and is 24 bijakshara of Gayatri mantra and 4 represents the 4 vedas. (reference from Bannanje Govidanchar in one of the upanishad and Gayatri Mantra Rahasya). Does janivara give any identity to be a brahmin? Is uniform necessary for a soldier to wage a war? Is black coat necessary for a lawyer? If white coat is not put on, can't the sick get relief from a doctor? Janivara is like white coat of doctor. Significance is limited to that.  It was not a birth right. So, Janivara does not give unique identity to a brahmin.

Historically, we had an easy conversion of a scholar to Brahmin. Vyasa and valmiki etc were the examples. There were many Greeks during Alexander invasion and latter rule, opted to stay back in India and converted to be brahmins and priests. Rama is a kshatriya. Krishna was OBC. They were wearing Janivara. Read wiki page for "Haritasa gotra". An ansistor of rama called Haritasa, converted to brahmin. Madhwacharya, Buddha were born in this clan. So, From the linage, madhwa charya was a warrior. Mayura, the first kadamba king was a brahmin. He converted to Kshatriya. Banaras king is a brahmin even today. Drona was a brahmin, but fought as warrior in Mahabharata. Ravana was a rakshasa (not even human). He was wearing janivara and doing sandhyavandane (gokarna story). Agastya was not a brahmin. But he started a brahmin gotra and converted many people to become brahmans. He is the worshipped saint for many non-brahmin sects even today.  Switching of cast and sub-casts in olden days was as simple as switching ones profession (Same  as an Arvind kejriwal switching from IIT engineer to IRS officer to social activist to CM of Delhi!). This is the reason, I said brahmin was a stream like lawyer today. 

Brahmans were in the trade of providing 'religious services'. 'Veda' wass their base for providing religious services. So, 'Dharma' or the 'professional ethics' of brahman is to 'Think'/'say' and 'Do' as stated in Vedas. It is as simple as that. If today, a brahman engages in another profession, say 'Medical Doctor', by wearing sacread thread, he has to 'Think', 'Say' and 'Do' ethics of medical profession. Do your duty whole heartedly without regards for results, says gita. It is just another form of stating same thing. Does the modern thinking say anything different? Same was true for 'Kshatriya', who was in the trade of providing 'security' of the nation. If you understand this, you have deciphered the 'cast' system.

One of the problem faced by todays generation is to argue using the commentaries on original idea than the original idea itself. Hindu culture is like democracy. Any one can come with a definition to suite his understanding or make it simpler for others to learn. From this aspect, different people have given different perspective. The commentaries are meant only for understanding the original idea. Some commentators..to show of have their skill, have elaborated so much so that, original idea is lost in the process. 3 debt is one such explanation. If it better suites you to understand the concept..you can accept that. Issue is simple....2+2+2 = 6...so is 4+2. = 6. Is there any meaning arguing. 4+2 is only 6?

Addendum

Referrenced from "http://aavaahana.blogspot.in/2011_07_01_archive.html"

Brahmin: is not a caste, in those days who were educated and could scholar the Vedas were called Brahmins irrespective of the caste they belonged, to certify them that they were Brahmins, they were asked to wear a holy thread called Janivara, and from then on whatever caste they earlier belonged to, was not theirs anymore but were called Brahmins forever, a person was never considered Brahmin just because his parents were, this thread (Janivara)slided from their left shoulder moving across their chest and stomach and ended at the right side of their hip, this had another reason too, during their Gurukul period i.e. schoolings , a task of getting food from the nearest villages and sharing the alms was one activity they did have to accomplish everyday, they had to stay cautious of not getting mislead due to their puberty at times and stay focused to their studies. So the thread was worn by these young men so that, young girls and women who supposedly get attracted to these young boys could possibly ruin their lives, hence when a young boy head shaven with a thread across would come around begging in the village was an indication of a Brahmin boy, under schooling. When such boys are around or at the front door begging for alms women and girls will have their faces covered or head bowed or partially invisible and the boys too had to bow their heads down and not look at them, this was to avoid them fall in love, to avoid discontinuation in studies.
Thus, Brahman meant the one who possessed "Bramha Gnana" by mastering all the four vedas, "Bramhana" was the certification of his completion, understanding and implementing the sanskaras mentioned in the vedic texts, it is hence not a caste. As one who completes his course of engineering is called an "Engineer", anatomy a "doctor", similarly the one who masters vedas was called a "Bramhan". not necessarily an Engineer's son should also be certified an Engineer or a Doctor's son a Doctor though they possess no knowledge about the same, similarly a Brahmin's son not necessarily will have to be certified a Brahmin without the "Bramha Gnana".

Ref and Additional material at : 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanayana#Three_debts

2)  http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/.../notes-on-early.../

Most interestingly the sanatkumAra saMhitA gives two forms of upanayanaM, the vedic form for dvijas and tantric agnimukhaM version for women and shUdras. On recieving that they may perform several rites, but the pA~ncharatric brahmin is still supposed to perform vaidika rites to various deities in addition to the internal pA~ncharatric sacrifices to vedic deities given in the rudra rAtra.