Then there are the occurences of this formula without the similes. But with some differences.
Whereas DN 2 (with similes) has:
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
So vivicceva kāmehi, vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.
DN 1 has:
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, this self enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’
Yato kho, bho, ayaṃ attā vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṃ attā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṃ patto hotī’ti.
Now, where the formula occurs in AN 9.41, I noticed this:
Then my mind was eager to stop applying the mind; it was confident, settled, and decided about it. I saw it as peaceful.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, avitakke cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato.
And so, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected were stilled … I was entering and remaining in the second absorption.
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, vitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā … pe … dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi.
He only talks about stopping vitakka. But then skips on ahead to stop both vitakka and vicāra. I wonder if the explanation came from the school of thought which regarded stopping them separately (as described elsewhere) - a remnant of that view perhaps. But then somewhere along the line, the more standard jhāna formula got inserted here?
But then I am confused as to why vitakka still appears as it continues:
And so, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected were stilled … I was entering and remaining in the second absorption.
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, vitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā … pe … dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi.
While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by placing the mind beset me, and that was an affliction for me.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato vitakkasahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.
Suppose a happy person were to experience pain; that would be an affliction for them.
Seyyathāpi, ānanda, sukhino dukkhaṃ uppajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya;
In the same way, should perceptions and attentions accompanied by placing of the mind and keeping it connected beset them, that’s an affliction for them.
evamevassa me vitakkasahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.
I also noticed in DN 17:
Pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca vihāsi, sato ca sampajāno sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃvedesi, yaṃ taṃ ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ti tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja vihāsi.
Is this a spelling mistake? Usually this is paṭisaṃvedeti, not paṭisaṃvedesi, no? (Is that something anybody needs informing about?)