If you can point out where “ad hominem” is happening, I’ll gladly edit. I criticized B. Sujato’s translation and inconsistent, incoherent application of “vitakka & vicara” across the suttas, not B. Sujato the person.
Unfortunately most people are not able to read the above sentence and make that distinction (between criticizing the idea versus the person who voiced the idea). We tend to have thin skin and take everything personally. I am a fan of Bhante Sujato and very grateful for his contributions to the world. Finally having all the EBT pali suttas available in English, free, is priceless. But being a fan of someone doesn’t mean we need to become sheep and agree with everything they say or politely refrain from criticizing them because we like them and we think they’re great people. We are all stewards of the Dhamma, and if we want to keep the Dhamma alive in this world, we need to voice are opinions when we feel something is going to harm the sustainability and survival of Dhamma. Our voices are important because even though we’re not professional translators, we are the consumers relying on their translations! If you don’t speak up, Bhante Sujato is going to assume how he is presenting first jhana, vitakka and vicara is making sense. Is it?
By collecting all the detailed pali+english audits from the many passages, into one organized article, that show exactly how V&V and first jhana need to be consistent and coherent, the pieces of the puzzle will finally start to all come together and you realize you can’t hide from the truth (or your interpretation of it).
YARVVI Chronicles: V&V, Vitakka = directed-thoughts, Vicāra=Evaluation (of said Vitakka)