The phrase “Brahmabandhu” is translated in two different ways across the suttas. For example, in SNP2.2 the Pali “Icceva tvaṁ bhāsasi brahmabandhu” is translated by Bhante Sujāto as “so you said, kinsman of Divinity” while Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it quite literally as “You said, O kinsman of Brahmā”.
The former style very roughly parallels the style of translating “Ādiccabandhu” as “kinsman of the sun”, as in DN32, though here we’re using a concrete noun (“the sun”), vs, the abstract noun (“divinity”) used earlier.
This contrasts with Thig12.1 where the Pali “Brahmabandhu pure āsiṁ” is translated by Bhante Sujato as “I used to be brahmin by kin”, and by Ayya Soma, more literally, as “Before I was a kinsman of Brahmā”.
I’m curious to understand the thinking or intent behind these different styles of translations, because they convey subtle but important differences in semantics.
“Kinsman of the sun” is more concrete, evokes a connection (or even a descent or lineage) with something physical, and also feels symbolic. In fact, “Adicca” (or “Aditya” in Sanskrit) is still used today in the Vedic faith - tracing the story back to the 12 sons of Aditi in the Rig Veda.
“Kinsman of Divinity” is more abstract, evoking kinship with an essence or quality, sort of more metaphysical.
And of course “Kinsman of Brahma” is just literal.
Brahmabandhu means (literally “kinsman of a brahmin” i.e. “being a brahmin merely by kinship with another brahmin”), and is typically used in a pejorative sense to refer to a person who is born in a brahmin family but is unworthy of calling themselves a brahmin due to their giving up (or not aquiring in the first place) one or more essential qualities/attributes/virtues/training required for true brahminhood.
In both SNp 2.2 and Thig 12.1 that you have quoted above, the idea of brahmabandhu is used in this sense. The divinity Brahmā has no contextual relevance here.
The discussion centered on their ancestral lineages, much of which remains unfamiliar to the general public today. The Gautama bloodline is connected to the solar deity Adicca/Aditya and is characterized as a hybrid lineage with Samana influences. Adicca/Aditya, the sun-god, is recognized as a tangible entity within the race of man(Manussa). Similarly, the Brahmins on Earth are descendants of the god Brahma and are a hybridized lineage with primate (monkey like). Well, the sun-god Adicca/Aditya is also direct descendent of Brahma god.
To address the simplest question first, the reason why my Therigatha translation is inconsistent is because it was the first one, and it has not always been updated, although I do try to keep them consistent. I plan to thoroughly revise that and Theragatha in due time.
Meanwhile, while I agree that “divinity” sounds more abstract, that’s not really the intent: it can be used both as an abstract nound (the property of divinity) and as a noun (a deity or god). Brahma is used in both ways, too, so I cover them both with divinity; but where it is a noun I usually capitalize.
Now, in terms of the connotations pointed out by srkris, I’ll look into this more closely. Perhaps a different rendering is called for, “nominal brahmin”, or “brahmin only by caste”. This sense is made explicit in Shankara’s comm to BhU: brahmabandhavo jātimātropajīvina ityetat.
Olivelle translates in CU 6.1.1 as “the kind of brahmin who is only so because of birth”. The phrase there is: brahmabandhur iva bhavati, “they are like a relative of Brahma”.
But I want to question the first part:
Surely it must be, per the dictionary refs, “kinsman of brahma”, else it would be brāhmaṇabandhu.
Yes, and that is what I’ve said too. It does not mean relative of any divinity.
Also this page says the same thing.
Uddālaka (Āruṇi) says to his son Śvetaketu : you have to observe brahmacarya (celibacy) and learn the Vedas, for nobody in our family has lived like a brahmabandhu (i.e. a brahmin merely by accident of birth, rather than by virtuous lifestyle and learning).
Depends on the author of the dictionary’s own understanding of idomatic expressions, but I dont think “kinsman of Brahma” makes any contextual sense here.
“Brahmin” is one of the meanings of the noun brahman (in initio compositi the final ‘n’ of brahman is elided so it becomes ‘brahma’-bandhu).
Besides these words are ancient idiomatic usages, so there is no point asking why they dont use a word like brāhmaṇabandhu instead of brahmabandhu.
