Brahmins in Buddhism

I recently came across these verses in the Mahabharata:

BORI CE: 12-035-018

अपि चाप्यत्र कौन्तेय मन्त्रो वेदेषु पठ्यते

वेदप्रमाणविहितं तं धर्मं प्रब्रवीमि ते

BORI CE: 12-035-019

अपेतं ब्राह्मणं वृत्ताद्यो हन्यादाततायिनम्

न तेन ब्रह्महा स स्यान्मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति

Translation: O Kaunteya, there's a mantra in the Vedas. I describe to you the dharma that is approved by the Vedas. "If a Brahmin falls from his path and acts like an aggressor, killing him will not accrue the sins of being a Brahmin-slayer. This is [instead simply] seen as fury countering fury.

While brahmahatya (the killing of a Brahmana) was regarded as an extremely grave sin (see BORI CE: 1-149-007 for example), verses expressing similar sentiments to the one above occur elsewhere in the text as well (eg. BORI CE: 5-178-027). What makes these specific verses noteworthy is that they explicitly cite the Vedas as the original source. When I tried to look for a mention of this exact verse in the Vedas, all results in a preliminary google search pointed back to the Mahabharata itself.

There are, however, similar (not 'exactly same') verses found in other texts: For example, here's one from the Manusmriti, which also found as-is in Vishnu-Smriti 5:190-191

गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् ।

आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् ॥

Ganganath Jha: Without hesitation one should strike an approaching desperado,—be he a preceptor, a child, or an aged man, or a highly learned Brāhmaṇa. (8-350).

A similar verse is also found in Padma Purāṇa, Sṛṣṭikhaṇḍa 48.56-57, and similarly, Śiva Purāṇa, Umāsaṃhitā 21.35. 

---

At this point, I'd given up my search for this verse in the Vedas as the thoughts mentioned in the verse are not that extraordinary. Interestingly though, during my search I stumbled upon Buddhist sources.

There's a verse in the Dhammapada that stands antagonistic to the views expressed in the verses above:

Na brāhmaṇassa pahareyya, nāssa muñcetha brāhmaṇo;
Dhī brāhmaṇassa hantāraṁ, tato dhī yassa muñcati.

Translation: One should not strike a Brahmin, nor should a Brahmin release [anger] upon him.
Shame on the slayer of a Brahmin, and greater shame on him who releases [anger in return].

There's apparently a verse in the Tibetan canon Udanavarga which talks of something similar:

གང་ཞིག་བྲམ་ཟེ་རྡེག་པ་བླུན་༎་སྐྲོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ངན་པས་༎་བྲམ་ཟེ་རྣམས་ལ་བརྡེག་མི་བྱ་༎་བྲམ་ཟེ་བསྐྲད་པར་མི་བྱའོ་༎

Translation: The fool who beats a Brahmin, and the wicked one who banishes him [is condemned]. One should not beat Brahmins, nor should one banish a Brahmin. 

I was quite surprised to see this. The Buddhist worldview towards Brahmins is much kinder than what I was initially led to believe. All my previous exposure to these topics came in the form of mainstream historiography which pits Buddhism against Brahmanism, the former made out to be revolutionary reformist attack on the orthodox rigidity of latter. In this regard, one of the articles about the Dhammapada that I came across highlight the fact that certain Buddhist texts (re)define the word "Brahmin" from 'something that one becomes by being born into a particular family/lineage' to 'something that one becomes by displaying certain virtuous traits' - compassion, patience, study, wisdom, etc. (ref. Dhammapada: 386 for example, keep in mind, Pali original "brāhmaṇa" is intentionally translated to "sage" in the neutral reformist reading). This, it says, is proof that Brahmanism had grown to be rigid enough that it restricted the much coveted priestly positions to a certain lineages only.

Now I'm not academically familiar with how committed the historians are to this idea, but this singular point cannot form the crux of the argument that fuels Buddhism's reformist interpretation. That the Dhammapada defines the Brahmin title as something stemming from one's conduct rather than lineage does in no way imply (1) this definition is/was novel, (2) the contemporary society had this infamous rigid orthodoxy which necessitated pushback through such definitions.

For the first point, we can find that such definitions already existed in contemporary popular Hindu texts too.  For example, Mahabharata already has already expressed this sentiment beautifully:

ब्राह्मणः पतनीयेषु वर्तमानो विकर्मसु |

दाम्भिको दुष्कृतप्रायः शूद्रेण सदृशो भवेत् || BORI CE: 3-206-011 ||

यस्तु शूद्रो दमे सत्ये धर्मे च सततोत्थितः |

तं ब्राह्मणमहं मन्ये वृत्तेन हि भवेद्द्विजः || BORI CE: 3-206-012 ||

Translation: A brahmana who performs evil deeds is certain to meet with downfall. One who is vain and the performer of evil deeds is almost equal to a shudra. A shudra who is controlled, truthful and devoted to dharma, always rises. I think him to be a brahmana who becomes a brahmana because of his conduct.

A similar discourse in the same book (Book 3 - Aranyaka Parva) is equally beautiful:

BORI CE: 3-177-018

सर्प उवाच

चातुर्वर्ण्यं प्रमाणं च सत्यं च ब्रह्म चैव ह

शूद्रेष्वपि च सत्यं च दानमक्रोध एव च

आनृशंस्यमहिंसा च घृणा चैव युधिष्ठिर

The serpent asked: "Truthfulness and knowledge of the brahman can be found in all the four varnas. O Yudhishthira! Truthfulness, charity, lack of anger, lack of cruelty, non-violence and compassion can also be found among shudras.

BORI CE: 3-177-019

वेद्यं यच्चात्थ निर्दुःखमसुखं च नराधिप

ताभ्यां हीनं पदं चान्यन्न तदस्तीति लक्षये

O lord of men! You have said that the object of knowledge is beyond happiness and unhappiness. But there is nothing that is free from either. I do not think such a thing exists."

BORI CE: 3-177-020

युधिष्ठिर उवाच

शूद्रे चैतद्भवेल्लक्ष्यं द्विजे तच्च न विद्यते

न वै शूद्रो भवेच्छूद्रो ब्राह्मणो न च ब्राह्मणः

Yudhishthira replied: "If these traits, not even found in a brahmana, are seen in a shudra, he is not a shudra. A brahmana in whom a brahmana's traits are not found, is a shudra.

BORI CE: 3-177-021

यत्रैतल्लक्ष्यते सर्प वृत्तं स ब्राह्मणः स्मृतः

यत्रैतन्न भवेत्सर्प तं शूद्रमिति निर्दिशेत्

O serpent! It is said that one in whom these traits are found is a brahmana. O serpent! One in whom these traits are not found, is marked as a shudra.

And for the second point, my disbelief stems from my personal (but not uninformed) understanding that almost all ancient societies were poor enough to not afford the luxuries of boxing people into specific roles.
Men were under perpetual threat from both natural and man-made forces. Flood, famine, forest fire, warring tribes and disease raged through the lands. No society could afford not utilizing people and their natural inclinations to the fullest - not using a learned man as a priest (mind you, this was a time when priests were not just experts of pure theology but also general knowledge - which herbs to eat, which plants when to sow, when to harvest, what to look for when marrying someone, etc), not using a hardy man for manual labour, and not using the strong and brave as soldiers. 

At the same time, the usual societal structure had the sword-wielding ruling class at the helm, as opposed to the commonly thought to be mantra-chanting priestly class. In addition to this, at least in the Hindu context, being an ascetic would not be a more lucrative vocation than any other trade of those times. Most people would be working in agriculture or some trade and/or military. Taking all of this into account, it does not make sense to me why priestly classes would turn rigid. And as the verses mentioned above show, at every instance that it *could* become rigid, it was already nipped in the bud from within Hinduism through arguments like the ones listed above. It would not need the birth of a completely new sect of Hinduism just to counter orthodox rigidity.

Buddhism can be understood as an alternative to "Brahman"-ism in the sense that it does not subscribe to the idea of Brahman as the eternal truth. Beyond that, I'm still not convinced by the reformist interpretation. It seems misguided at best and malicious at worst.