what's B. Analayo's agenda in mistranslating vitakka?

William made a very interesting comment to my previous post
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-banalayo-says-about-v-in-mn-19-78.html

It seems like a topic others will want to discuss, so I started up the forum topic here:

what's B. Analayo's agenda in mistranslating vitakka?

http://fm.lucid24.org/index.php?topic=15.0

Quote

comment from:
William ChuMarch 1, 2019 at 11:20 AM
I've long shared your frustration with Analayo's highly problematic scholarship on meditation. When I collaborated with him on the translation of the Madhyama-agama, I thought that the Chinese side of things, coupled with what we've learned in the Pali suttas, would make his position on V&V untenable. I said, "it's now clear that V&V cannot mean what the Visuddhimagga tells us." And much to my astonishment, he drew a completely opposite conclusion and said that the comparative work makes his position stronger!
I suspect that his intransigent opinion on this matter has to do with another worrying trend in Buddhism. There are groups I ran into that advocated a pure cerebral/reflective approach to the Dhamma that does away with meditation altogether. Often, these groups cite the questionable Chinese Xushen-daofa jing in the Samyukta-agama on the issue of "deliverance via discernment/wisdom (panna-vimutti)," which according to the sutta means full liberation without any jhanic foundation.
Perhaps Analayo thought that any attempt at "sneaking the activity of thought into jhanas" is tantamount to the abovementioned jhana-undermining attempt? He therefore over-corrects by adamantly precludes the possibility of wholesome thoughts in first jhana?
I agree that most people self-talk in such a way as being little more than being mired in restlessness and philosophizing. But the first jhana type of inner narrative or framed guidance (vitakka) is vastly different. It is done with mindfulness (of clear frame, goal, application of the right methods), systematicity (so that thoughts are not distractive, but assiduously working toward the concerted goal of renunciation and calm and so forth). Such skill of wholesome vitakka is generally only possible after the practitioner has meticulously trained in speech (such as truthful and deliberate speech), as is the case with how the Buddha trained his disciples in a gradual manner. Without this foundation, the way people talk to themselves internally is generally untrustworthy, unsystematic, and unwholesome.
Given how tenuous, tendentious, and self-contradictory Analayo's scholarly arguments have been, this is the only non-malicious intention I can come up with to ascribe to him.

That's as good a theory as any, to the question "what's B. Analayo's agenda in mistranslating vitakka?"

The ends don't justify the means, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
The same problem occurs with how he cherry picks and interprets vinaya passages from various EBT lineages to suit his well intentioned agenda of more Bhikkhuni rights. 

It's not an either/or thing, there are other ways to accomplish well intentioned goals without compromising important qualities likes honesty, integrity, consistent methodology in translating and interpreting sutta & vinaya. Certainly it's more expedient, quicker and easier to deliberately doctor the evidence to suit your misinterpretation, but it has long term and short term consequences. It renders the EBT incoherent, the way he goes about it.