I see.
I have addressed this argument some years ago, so I will reproduce the research below
So here is what the sutta says, precisely:
aticiraṃ anuvitakketi anuvicāreti >> kāyo kilamati >> cittaṃ ūhaññati >> ārā cittaṃ samādhimhā
thinking and pondering for a long time >> the body is tired >> the mind is disturbed >> the mind is away/far from concentration
Does this sutta say that thinking has to be stopped before entering the first jhana? Obviously not.
What it does clearly say is this:
- Even when the Buddha speaks of concentration, he uses the word ‘vitakka’ and its derivatives (here the verb ‘vitakketi’) in the sense of ‘thinking’.
- ‘Thinking’ for « a long time » (aticiraṃ could be more accurately translated by « an excessively [ati-] long time [cira] »), will tire the body and render concentration impossible.
Is this passage compatible with the idea that ‘vitakka’ would mean something else than ‘thinking’ in jhana, and that actually there would be no ‘vitakka’ (in the usual sense of ‘thought’) in the first jhana? Well, it certainly seems so to some. But then again, ‘vitakka’ is used in its usual sense of ‘thought’ even in the context of samadhi practice, such as in this very passage of MN 19, and yet in that same context of samadhi practice, there would be no ‘vitakka’ in the sense of ‘thought’. In short, even in the context of samadhi practice we see that ‘vitakka’=’thought’ and yet, if Bhante Sujato is correct, in the first jhana we would have ‘vitakka’ but ‘thoughts’ would be absent.
That does not make any sense to me, and as a math teacher I would consider this a gross pedagogic mistake. I am quite convinced from my overall experience with the suttas that the Buddha mastered the art of pedagogy, and therefore I am not inclined to consider he would have made such a confusing mistake.
Now, is this passage incompatible with the idea that ‘vitakka’ could mean ‘thinking’ in the jhana formula? I would dare to say it is not.
As we have noted above, what it says exactly is that « excess » of thinking « for a long time » is detrimental to concentration. That does not mean there cannot be thinking in the first stage of jhana. It could mean however that the first jhana is not to be practiced excessively, or for a too long time. Let us compare here ‘vitakka’ with the expression ‘āraddha·vīriya’ (aroused energy). MN 19 continues and shows that aroused energy is well compatible with the first jhana, or at least that it leads towards it:
“āraddhaṃ kho pana me, bhikkhave, vīriyaṃ ahosi asallīnaṃ, upaṭṭhitā sati asammuṭṭhā, passaddho kāyo asāraddho, samāhitaṃ cittaṃ ekaggaṃ. so kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja vihāsiṃ. »
« Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated & single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. »
Yet acc·āraddha·vīriya (ati+āraddha+vīriya, excess of energy) is also detrimental to concentration, as MN 128 states:
« accāraddhavīriyaṃ kho me udapādi, accāraddhavīriyādhikaraṇañca pana me samādhi cavi. samādhimhi cute obhāso antaradhāyati dassanañca rūpānaṃ. seyyathāpi, anuruddhā, puriso ubhohi hatthehi vaṭṭakaṃ gāḷhaṃ gaṇheyya: so tattheva patameyya »
« Excess of energy arose in me, and because of excess of energy my concentration fell away. As my composure fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared.’ It is as if a man were to seize a quail tightly with both hands: it would die then and there. »
So I would conclude here that this argument based on MN 19 appears unconvincing to me, insofar as saying that excess of something is detrimental to attaining a certain state is not to be conflated with saying that this thing prevents per se the attainment of that state, and that therefore it cannot be present in it. It can very well be one prominent component of it, that is usually present in a moderate way, even though it would be better if it weren’t there at all. Not unlike processed sugar in food: even though it would be better to have food without processed sugar, a little bit of it doesn’t make food uneatable, whereas too much processed sugar does.
Now there might be another way in which one might try to say that MN 19 would prove that ‘thinking’ has to be abandoned before entering jhana, but I’ll only mention it briefly because it stands even less to analysis: it would be to consider that MN 19 progresses linearly, in such a way that the states described later are always more refined than the ones described earlier; then, since the sutta speaks first of ending thoughts and only later on of entering jhana, it should mean that the former has to come before the latter in actual practice, and that there could not be ‘thinking’ in jhana.
Such an assumption would obviously be erroneous. Indeed, MN 19 speaks first of absence of disturbance, of stilling thoughts and of concentration:
« thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.’ So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed. »
But then, in the next paragraph, it goes back to speaking again about thinking:
« Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with renunciation. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with non-ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with non-ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmlessness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmfulness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmlessness. »
Which clearly indicates a not-so-linear exposition.
Perhaps what you are missing here is that when the sutta says ‘the mind is far from samadhi’ it refers to the 2nd jhana as it is the 2nd jhana which is ‘born of samadhi’ unlike the 1st which is ‘born of withdrawal’.
I agree with Ceisiwr that it is pretty crazy to think that all this people in the past did practice incorrectly. Maybe they just found a little bit different way, but still within basic principles of Buddha-Dhamma, so working? 
