Fair enough. I hope you do write the essay at some point, because you do not adequately explain some important points in detail, and for most of the controversial points, you only cite some sutta references without substantiating the claim behind that with compelling reasons.
For example, some of the points you summarized in the link to your post quoted:
Here are a few examples: (1) The evidence from the suttas that the first jhāna is ekaggatā (one-pointed) is actually quite strong; (2) kāma in the formula for the first jhāna quite likely refers to the five senses and not desire; (3) point 2 is reinforced by a sutta (AN 10.72) that says hearing has to disappear before one can enter first jhāna ; (4) kāyena , as used in the third jhāna , does not mean “with the body”, but “directly”/“personally” (see Bucknell’s note 34); (5) the overcoming of perceptions of form mentioned in the first immaterial attainment does not relate to the five senses but to the echo of these senses as experienced by the mind; (6) the division of jhāna into five stages is sufficiently attested in the suttas ; (7) the sutta formula for the second jhāna makes it clear that vitakka-vicāra ceases completely in that state; that vitakka-vicāra in the first jhāna should therefore refer to a very refined aspect of thought - a mere movement of the mind - seems quite natural.
For #1, how is the evidence quite strong? AFAIK the only sutta passages where first jhana is explicitly called ‘ekaggata’, are from MN 43, and MN 111, both spoken by Sariputta, not the Buddha. Those are late suttas and probably not EBT, and we know how non EBT treatises, commentary, and schools of Buddhist thought are often attributed to Ven. Sariputta. Other times in the suttas when ekagga and ekodhibhava are used as a verb or as a noun, it can be referring to four jhanas, not to specifically just first jhana. For example, MN 122 has a passage that explains making the mind ekodibhava and samadhi is done by doing the standard four jhana formula. The words ekodibhava and samadhi do not appear until the second jhana formula, so it’s pretty clear what the Buddha is saying that until one is in a-vitakka a-vicara samadhi (2nd jhana or higher), he doesn’t consider it properly called “ekodi-bhava and in samadhi”. Ockham’s razor is usually correct, and it appears to be the case here.
All 7 of your points above are seriously flawed, and I have ample sutta references with pali+english word for word audit to support that, but I restrict my critique for the moment to just V&V.
On #7, I don’t follow your reasoning that since V&V cease completely in 2nd jhana, then in 1st jhana, V&V
“should therefore refer to a very refined aspect of thought - a mere movement of the mind - seems quite natural.”
Doesn’t seem at all natural to me. MN 19, with explicit description and similes, describes the V&V prior to first jhana, being of such a nature that causes the body and mind to become fatigued. So even though the akusala V&V has been replaced by kusala, that level of tension in the kusala is preventing it from qualifying as first jhana. What’s the difference in first jhana then? You’ll note in the cowherd simile and description of the mind before and after, the difference is passadhi takes place. The body and mind have been pacified to a degree, to allow piti&sukha to emerge. So it’s clear V&V has been attenuated in frequency and intensity, but the fundamental nature of the kusala V&V itself has not been altered. Otherwise, of all suttas, you would expect this to be the place where the Buddha explains how V&V has undergone a radical paradigm shift.
There are far more problems than that, and they are discussed here, with pali+english audit so you can see if the pali supports other interpretations.
The only way the EBT could support your interpretation of V&V currently, is if we assume the Buddha was negligent and incompetent in leaving out this important change in V&V in all the passages where V&V in one sentence to the next (where first jhana formula starts) undergoes a radical transformation without comment.
Now given a choice between the Buddha being negligent, or an overzealous, dubious interpretation of V&V that violates Bhante Sujato’s cardinal rules of “principle of least meaning” and “ockham’s razor is usually correct”, which scenario is more likely to be true?