Greetings, venerables and friends.
I’m looking for a clarification on abhinivesa as it’s used in AN7.61:
“Take a mendicant who has heard:
“Idha, moggallāna, bhikkhuno sutaṁ hoti:‘Nothing is worth insisting on.’
‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti;When a mendicant has heard that
evañcetaṁ, moggallāna, bhikkhuno sutaṁ hoti:nothing is worth insisting on,
‘sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā’ti.
Earlier this passage is talking about arguments:
So you should train like this:
Tasmātiha, moggallāna, evaṁ sikkhitabbaṁ:‘I won’t get into arguments.’
‘na viggāhikakathaṁ kathessāmī’ti.
Abhinivesa, using golden pali dictionary, I would say “settling on/taking up on”, but perhaps that doesn’t convey the argumentative connonations. “Insist” as Ven. Sujato uses here, seems like a good enough substitute.
Ven. Thanissaro offers a radical understanding, which I feel like paraphrases the meaning in a certain way he wants to read with this:
All phenomena are unworthy of attachment.
Both in using phenomena for dhamma (which I don’t think is quite correct here, with the previous example of argumentation) and using attachment, which technically not wrong, doesn’t seem to bring out the full meaning either.
This is another case where I’d rather not translate dhamma to anything else, alas.
I get the feeling of “All dhamma (point/perspective/ideas) is unworthy entering up into.” (settling on, taking up, etc?) which is something like what a literal translation of abhinivesa would imply to my ears.
“Nothing is worth getting into.” another example I can think of. But using Nothing doesn’t ring good to me, as Nothing is defined properly (and sometimes we even rely on nothingness in the suttas).
I would like to be meticulous in translating this passage as close to CT perspective as possible.
Thanks in advance for your time and help.