Reply To: Post On Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā)


I was rereading these posts and had similar thoughts as TGS.

Up to now, I always thought that Kāma Guṇa and somanassa do arise in an arahant, which make a lot of sense to me.

Under #29933 above, Lal wrote:
I have confirmed that many times. Yes, An Arahant would taste that meal to be tasty.

I do remember Lal mentioning that many times, plus a few other examples, such as one about a beautiful woman.


Kāma Guna, Kāma, Kāma Rāga, Kāmaccandha

#9. of this post says:
A beautiful woman will be seen as such by anyone from an average person to an Arahant.

All of the above make sense to me since I take “guṇa” to mean just a quality shared by most in a certain group of human beings, as stated in #2 of the post:

“While there could be minor differences, all humans experience the same basic “qualities” or “kāma guṇa” through the five physical senses. Even when one becomes an Arahant, that will not change”.

My reasoning was that arahants still have functional indriya that can discern guṇa such as tastiness of food or beauty in a person (or a scenic place, etc.). I can see somanassa arising in an arahant due to such discernment, as in #5 of the post:

Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā)

However, “tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso, phassa paccayā vedanā” in #2 above does not occur in an Arahant. Even though an Arahant will experience sōmanassa vēdanā due to kāma guṇa, an Arahant would NOT get attached to that “pleasant/sensual feeling.”

It’s just that that kind of discernment will never lead to Kāma, Kāma Rāga, Kāmaccandha, or tanha in an arahant. In an average person it does.


“Kāma Guṇa do not arise in an Arahant.”

“Somanssa and domanassa are both created by the mind based on Kāma Guṇa. Thus, they do not arise in an Arahant.”

This is confusing, but that’s probably what Lal is working in his next post.

Thank you!