ब्राह्मण्यम्

Source: TW

ब्राह्मण-विकाराः

तस्माद्वर्णा ऋजवो ज्ञातिवर्णाः
संसृज्यन्ते तस्य विकार एव । एकं साम यजुरेकमृगेका विप्रश् चैको निश्चये तेषु सृष्टः ॥ ४७

यस्मात् त्रिषु वर्णेषु ब्राह्मणो यज्ञस्रष्टा
तस्मात् सर्वेऽपि वर्णाः ऋजत्रः साधव एव यज्ञसंयोगात् ।
एवं धर्मसाम्येऽपि
ज्ञातिसाम्यं नास्तीत्याशंक्याह -
ज्ञाति-वर्णाः अपि क्षत्रियवैश्यशूद्रास्
तस्य ब्राह्मणस्यैव विकारे
क्षत्रियादि-कन्यासूत्पन्ने मूर्धाभिषिक्तादौ संसृज्यन्त एव ।
तेन धर्मतो जन्मतश्च
सर्वे वर्णा ब्राह्मणसंसृष्टा इति स्थितम् ।

तत्र हेतुमाह – एक इति ।

तेषु तत्त्वनिश्चये क्रियमाणे
एको विप्रो ब्रह्मैव प्रथमो ब्राह्मणः सृष्टो जातः ।
ब्राह्मणसन्ततित्वात्
सर्वेप्य् एते ब्राह्मणा एवेत्यर्थः ।

दृष्टान्तः- एकं सामेति ।
अकारो वै सर्वा वाक्
सैषा स्पर्शोष्मभिर्व्यज्यमाना बह्वी नानारूपा भवतीति श्रुतेरेक अकार-रूपम् एव
अक्षरं यथा सामादिरूपं
तथा ब्रह्मैव ब्राह्मणादि-रूपमित्यर्थः ॥ ४७ ॥

In this Mahābhārata’s verse, as per Nīlakaṇṭha’s commentary, it’s been said that all varṇas are related to each other like one family
because they are all transformations of Brāhmaṇas,
as in cases of Mūrdhābhiṣikta and so forth, where Kṣatriya and other varṇas get mixed with Brāhmaṇa varṇa.

Others get connected with Brāhmaṇas through yajñas.

Nīlakaṇṭha goes a step further and says that if one gets to the root, all are Brāhmaṇas.

Just as one ‘akāra’ gets transformed into sāman, etc., similarly one Brahman alone becomes Brāhmaṇa & so forth.

From Mahābhārata, Śāntiparvan, 60.

RShis?

Two interesting cases where Ṛṣis were addressed as ‘Śūdrāputra’ and ‘Dāsīputra’, being declared ‘Abrāhmaṇa-s’. Eventually the Ṛṣis proved their power.

Vatsa Kāṇva is called ‘Śūdrāputra’ by Medhātithi Kāṇva.
Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is called ‘Dāsīputra’ by Ṛṣis.

The case of Kavaṣa is further interesting because his father Ilūṣa isn’t mentioned as a Ṛṣi either by Ṣaḍguruśiṣya or Sāyaṇa. Interesting to note that Sāyaṇa does not mention Ilūṣa, the father of sage Kavaṣa as a Ṛṣi in his commentary on Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 8.1. He calls Kavaṣa ‘son of a man called Ilūṣa’. For Sāyaṇa, the reason why other sages called him non-Brāhmaṇa, was his being a gambler (Kitava). For Ṣaḍguruśiṣya, they called him so because he did not practise the sadācāra like sandhyāvandana, etc. Nevertheless, the sage showed his power, and his purity and divinity was recognised by the other sages.

This might be the reason why Manu uses an adjective ‘Brahmayonistha’ for Brāhmaṇas (MS 10.74), who could take up the specific 6 livelihoods meant for Brāhmaṇas. ‘Brahmayonistha’ means born of Brāhmaṇa parents. From PoV of MS 10.5, this adjective is superfluous. There, a Brāhmaṇa is, for instance, defined as the one born of Brāhmaṇa parents (wedded in a proper manner). The 2 instances mentioned above may indicate a wider usage of the term ‘Brāhmaṇa’. References: Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa 14.6.6, Aitareyabrāhmaṇa 2.3(8).1.