I’ll leave this to the Vinaya experts to chime in, but judging from SN 35.87, I think this leeway is best exercised by those on the cusp of full awakening. I’m thinking also of the jhana-attainers who lose their attainments because of lax discipline.
I’ve addressed your point about the viharato here - Vitakka vicāra (Jhana-factors) - #380 by Sylvester
I have no disagreement with Duroiselle’s characterisation of the matter. But how did you infer from that that the the arising of vitakkasahagatā saññāmanasikārā within the Second Jhana does not destroy the attainment?
If you look very carefully at Duroiselle’s point, the temporal issue lies in the contemporaneity of the action in the main clause (in this case samudācaranti) with the action in the subordinate clause (viharato). The problem with viharato is that it is a continuation of viharami from the preceding sentence. Do note that viharami is not an independent verb here, but is part of the periphrastic construction “upasampajja viharāmi”. It’s merely an auxillary verb used to convey a durative sense to the periphrasis.
All one can legitimately say about the present participle married to the instrumental of time above is that the affliction arose when one was in the attainment; there is no basis to assert that thereafter, the attainment persisted. In fact, if you look at the 1st example from Duroiselle cited above, would you insist that on chancing upon the thieves, he necessarily continued going to his village?
In fact, one can infer the contrary. If the Second Jhana is supposed to be empty of vitakka, but that attainment is now afflicted by vitakka, is it still the Second Jhana? On the basis of this, I would offer that Premise 1 as revised is true (at least as measured against the texts).
Hee, hee. Are you sure the 4 jhanas are not mentioned? Take a look at the Black Forest narrative involving the nun Jatila Bhagika. Haven’t we covered this before on DW?