Hi Keren (and Nina),

Your "vitakkavicaarana.m" should read "vitakkavicaaraana.m" (gen.
plural). It's a dvanda compound that resolves into "vitakkassa ca
vicaarassa ca" as made clear in the commentary to the Vinayapi.taka
as follows:

vitakkavicaaraana.m vuupasamaa ti vitakkassa ca vicaarassa caa ti
imesa.m dvinna.m vuupasamaa samatikkamaa. --Sp I 147

"samatikkamaa" (from the surpassing of) is given as a synonym
for "vuupasamaa".

I think the genitive use here is like that of an accusative, eg.
the "cutting of a tree (gen.)" is similar to "cutting a tree (acc.)".

Best wishes,
Jim

Keren asks:

> My questions are:
> 1. Why vicaarana.m? It is not a Genative plural, so why the
> additional n

Nina replies:

> Hi Keren,
> This is about the abandoning of the jhaanafactors vitakka, applied

thought,

> and vicaara, sustained thought, at the second stage of jhaana.
> Now the form. vicaara.naa (f) is the same as vicaara, a synonym

used for

> explanation in the Visuddhimagga 142.
> Thus: by the overcoming of vitakka and vicaara.
> It seems to me that this is an accusative, it is the patient of

vuupasamaa.