[Johnny_Lim]

Pleasing and agreeable things in this world that has Kāma Guṇa can evoke Sāmisa Vedanā in a person but never Kāma assāda, right? So, if a person who experiences Kāma assāda, does it imply that this person has already executed the samphassa-jā-vedanā process?

[Lal]

“Pleasing and agreeable things in this world that has Kāma Guṇa can evoke Sāmisa Vedanā in a person but never Kāma assāda, right?”

Yes.

“So, if a person who experiences Kāma assāda, does it imply that this person has already executed the samphassa-jā-vedanā process?”

No. Kāma assāda are, by definition, samphassa-jā-vedanā.

The Buddha would also taste honey as sweet. The sweetness of honey is a Kāma Guṇa.
– An average person may attach to the taste of honey and may generate greedy thoughts about tasting more honey. That is due to samphassa (“san” + “phassa”) or “contact with “san” or defilement (greed in this case)”
– But the Buddha (or any Arahant or an Anāgāmi) would not generate “samphassa-jā-vedanā” for eating honey.

[Johnny_Lim]

Hi Lal,

When an Arahant tastes a delicious meal, will he/she feel that a delicious meal has been eaten? Do words like beautiful, melodious, fragrant, delicious, soothing etc. even exist in an Arahant’s mind? You mentioned the sweetness of honey is a Kāma Guṇa. What about one’s opinion on honey? It is a subjective thing. Another example would be the acquired smell and taste of durian.

Thanks.

[Lal]

Hi Johnny,

You wrote: “When an Arahant tastes a delicious meal, will he/she feel that a delicious meal has been eaten?”

I have confirmed that many times. Yes, An Arahant would taste that meal to be tasty.
– But he/she will not attach to that taste. No taṇhā or upādāna will be generated in the mind of an Arahant.

Please read the relevant posts and cite the bullet numbers if I had said anything different.
“Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā)”

“Kāma Guna, Kāma, Kāma Rāga, Kāmaccandha“

[Johnny_Lim]

I have been thinking about this and here are some thoughts…

I think there is no straightforward answer as to whether a person will absolutely find a delicious meal (as commonly agreed by most people), to be well, delicious. Whatever we experienced is influenced by 3 factors: the vipaka of past kamma that takes place in present life; present volitions (body, verbal, mental); our external environment (people, things, event). Any effect experienced by the person is never coming solely from one factor alone for no one single factor has the absolute determining power to dictate the result. It’s somewhat like a vector summation of the 3 factors that gives a resultant effect that is to be experienced. The Kāma Guṇa of a food happens to be our external environment, which is just a physical attribute. One can taste the flavour of the food but whether the flavour is palatable to the person is highly subjective. We find certain food delicious not because we want to think it that way. Thinking that the food is delicious is really just concluding the net result of what is experienced through the causal relationship among the 3 factors mentioned above. I would also think if an Arahant has some issues with spicy food (maybe his stomach cannot take spicy food), he might not find spicy food particularly tasty even when his fellow monks have a different opinion from his.

[TripleGemStudent]

Trying to gain a better understanding about Kāma Guṇa, I thought of taking an Abhidhamma approach and used Bhikkhu Bodhi’s the comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma. On page 69 (not the scanned page) it mentions about wholesome result rootless consciousness kusalavipakaahetukacittani.

 

“Seven of these types of consciousness correspond to the unwholesome-resultants. But whereas the unwholesome-resultants arise in regard to an undesirable object, the wholesome-resultants arise in regard to an object that is desirable (ittha) or extremely desirable (ati-ittha). The first four sense consciousness here, like their counterparts, are associated with equanimity, that is, neutral feeling; but the impact of the object on the body being strong, the feeling associated with wholesome-resultant body-consciousness is that of bodily pleasure (sukha). 

 

The rootless wholesome-resultants include one type of consciousness without a counterpart among the unwholesome-resultants. This is the investigating consciousness accompanied by joy (somanassa). Whereas the investigating consciousness resulting from unwholesome kamma is always accompanied by neutral feeling, that resulting from wholesome kamma is twofold: one accompanied by neutral feeling, arisen in regard to a moderately desirable object, and one accompanied by joy, which arises when the object is especially desirable”. 

Is there a connection between kusalavipakaahetukacittani and Kāma Guṇa?  

It’s interesting to me seeing the Pali word “iṭṭhā” which arise in regards to an object that is desirable”. I notice that “iṭṭhā” also shows up as a description for Kāma Guṇa. 

“Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā.” Katame pañca?

Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā,

 

[Lal]

TGS wrote, “It’s interesting to me seeing the Pali word “iṭṭhā” which arise in regards to an object that is desirable”. I notice that “iṭṭhā” also shows up as a description for Kāma Guṇa. “

Good catch. Yes. There is a connection. I will explain this in the upcoming post.

[TripleGemStudent]

While I continued to investigate into this matter, I came across this. 

 

Page 146 (not scanned page) The comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma:

 

“Though it may seem that pleasure and pain also accompany the other four kinds of sense consciousness, the Abhidhamma maintains that the immediate moment of sense consciousness in these cases is necessarily accompanied by neutral feeling. In the javana phase belonging to the same cognitive process as the moment of sense consciousness, and in subsequent mind-door processes taking the same object, mental pleasure (that is, somanassa or joy) may arise towards an agreeable sight, sound, smell, or taste; mental pain (that is, domanassa or displeasure) may arise towards a disagreeable sight, etc.; and equanimity or neutral feeling (upekkha) may arise towards an object regarded with indifference or detachment. These, however, are mental feelings rather than physical feelings, and they arise subsequent to the moment of bare sense consciousness rather than in immediate association with the bare sense consciousness. As they occur in the javana phase, these feelings are associated with wholesome or unwholesome consciousness, or — in the case of the joy and equanimity experienced by Arahants — with functional consciousness. 

 

Initially I was thinking that domanassa could arise in Arahants due to Kāma Guṇa, but after reviewing some Abhidhamma I’m starting to believe that domanassa doesn’t arise in an Arahant or the Buddha even if it’s due to Kāma Guṇa. My current understanding is that domanassa is only associated with dosa as a root (dosamulacittani). The Buddha and Arahants have eradicated all kilesa, that should mean there’s no dosamula citta’s which then domanassa doesn’t arise. Unless domanassa can arises in other ways besides from being rooted in the dosamula citta’s?

 

I just thought of this, but would Kāma Guṇa and pancakkhandha be associated? If so then it seems like Kāma or Kāmā or kāmehicould be associated to panca upadanakkhandha, while Kāma Guṇa could be associated with pancakkhandha? 

[Lal]

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.
• An Arahant would experience only dukha or sukha vedana experienced by the physical body. Somanssa and domanassa are both mind-made (“so manssa” and “do manassa”).

Question: “I just thought of this, but would Kāma Guṇa and pancakkhandha be associated?”

• No. 
• However, Kāma Guṇa gives rise to pancupadanakkhandha.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

TripleGemStudent

[TripleGemStudent]

From post Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā)

Vedanā Due to Kāma Guṇa Are Not “samphassa-jā-vedanā“

5. However, this sōmanassa vēdanā  that arises due to kāma guṇa are NOT the “samphassa-jā-vēdanā.” Somanassa vēdanā due to kāma guṇa arises in an Arahant, as well as in an average human.

• Let us clarify with some examples. Sugar or honey has a “kāma guna” of sweetness. That holds for everyone, from an average person to an Arahant. A beautiful woman will be seen as such by anyone from an ordinary person to an Arahant.

Is revision needed since Kāma Guṇa doesn’t arise in an Arahant?

As well if Kāma Guṇa doesn’t arise in an Arahant, than Sāmisa Vedanā doesn’t arise in an Arahant as well?

From the same post Kāma Guṇa – Origin of attachment (Tanha)

Vedanā Due to Kāma Guṇa Are Sāmisa Vedanā

6. There is a unique name for those “automatically-arising” vēdanā due to kāma guna. They are sāmisa vēdanā.

• The word sāmisa has origins in the keyword “āmisa,” which means “associated with the sensual world” or “kāma lōka.” Thus, sāmisa sukha vēdanā means a “pleasant feeling” that arises due to the nature of the kāma lōka.
• An Arahant, as well as an average human, will experience similar “sāmisa vēdanā.” Any sensory event of kāma lōka is a sāmisa vēdanā.

 

[cubibobi]

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:

2.
“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)

#5
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.

Now,

#45548
“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!
Lang

[Lal]

Thank you, TGS and Lang.

Yes. Some of the points you pointed out are incorrect and need fixing. That is why I thought of writing a new post first. Then (or concurrently), I will revise the relevant posts. Please post anything else contradictory you find on this thread.

Incorrect and needs fixing:

“5. However, this sōmanassa vēdanā  that arises due to kāma guṇa are NOT the “samphassa-jā-vēdanā.” Somanassa vēdanā due to kāma guṇa arises in an Arahant, as well as in an average human.”

Correct:

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

• But there is no attachment to that taste.
• It is just that the “sweetness” or “saltiness” in not a vedana but a “sanna”. 

---

2. “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.”

• Somanassa/domanassa vedana do not arise in an Arahant. Only sukha/dukha vedana can arise in an Arahant.

 

[cubibobi]

Thank you, Lal!

“It is just that the “sweetness” or “saltiness” in not a vedana but a “sanna”.”

This makes a lot of sense!

So, the nature of “sweetness”, “saltiness”, etc. is the “Guṇa” part of “Kāma Guṇa“. If we were to invent a phrase, can we say that an arahant has “Guna Sanna“? (with guna implied to apply to the kama loka).

If we say “Kāma Guṇa” then the “Kāma” part implies some kind of attachment, and not mere “qualities” or “characteristics”, correct?

[Lal]

If there is not even “kama sanna” then An Arahant would not experience any taste! I am still trying to verify it. (P.S. See comment #45581 below.)

• This is a tricky issue because we don’t have any Arahants to verify this for us.
• However, as you stated, “Kāma Guṇa” definitely refers to attachment. I found some suttas that say an Arahant has removed all “Kāma Guṇa” from the mind.

P.S. I have corrected the main errors in both posts mentioned in Lang’s comment. I need to go through them carefully and make further revisions. Please let me know if anyone sees things that require a review. I want to take the time and make sure to get the facts right as much as possible (e.g., references from the Tipitaka.)

[TripleGemStudent]

– “I want to take the time and make sure to get the facts right as much as possible (e.g., references from the Tipitaka.)” 

I feel the same way, currently I’m motivated regarding this matter and would like to have or come to some kind of a satisfactory answer really for myself and others that interested in this matter. Recently I tried to explain to myself what “Kāma Guṇa” is and then I started to realize what I have understood or believed about “Kāma Guṇa” wasn’t self consistent and felt that my knowledge and understanding about “Kāma Guṇa” had gaps of understanding. I’m really grateful to be able to come across liked minded people like here on Puredhamma where I can utilize and borrow other’s experiences and intelligence / wisdom to help me discern any misunderstandings that I might have in regards to the dhamma and the sharing of dhamma that can help me to further progress on the Noble 8 Fold Path.  

– “I found some suttas that say an Arahant has removed all “Kāma Guṇa” from the mind”. 

Thanks for bringing that up! That really helps. 

 

I have been investigating into what exactly “Kāma Guṇa” is and currently trying to piece together all the information that I have recently learned from this thread, as well from what I have looked into and contemplated on. There’s a question that I would like to ask for feedback and confirmation to make sure what I’m starting to think and believe about the teaching on “Kāma Guṇa” is in the right direction or is the appropriate understanding. 

 

(A) My question is, are there any sense objects rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā “by itself” (without the mind or citta) that can definitely be said to have the “inherent / intrinsic” qualities or characteristics of “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” or that’s “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, and leading to desire?”
 

From what I have contemplated over and over again for the last 2 days on this questions is that “no” there isn’t any such sense objects “by itself” that has the “inherent / intrinsic” qualities or characteristics of “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” or “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, and leading to desire”.

 

My believe now is that iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā is based on that living being conditions of the body and mind at that time / moment and when one’s gati, anusaya’s, asava’s, kilesa’s makes phassa (contact) with the 5 sense objects. It’s “not” the 5 sense objects “by itself” that is agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, and leading to desire. It’s one’s gati / kilesa’s that makes 5 sense objects agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, and leading to desire.

 

To me, this would fall inline with what Lal and Lang have brought up: “However, as you stated, “Kāma Guṇa” definitely refers to attachment.”

 

I have been playing around with the name Kāma Guṇa and what I have thought of is qualities or characteristics (guna) leading to Kāma. The qualities or characteristics of cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā or from one of the other 4 sense objects leads to Kāma. 

 

(B) Would it be appropriate to say that Kāma Guṇa is more associated with tanha, while Kāma or kāmā, kāmehi is more associated with upadana? 

 

“Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. …”

 

I got this translation of Suttacentral and I find the word “known” in the translation to be quite helpful for myself. When I look up the definition of “known”, I get “used to refer to something or someone that is familiar to or understood by people“

 

How this could be potentially helpful to me is that when I apply the definition for “known”; 

 

“Sights that are familiar or understood by the eye as likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.” 

 

What this “known as”, “familiar with” or “understood” as likeable desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing by the eyes” is relating to our kilesa’s or the teaching of Anuseti. 

 

Anuseti – How Anusaya Grows with Saṅkhāra

 

My understanding of the Buddha dhamma is that us as Buddhist practitioners should “know”, “be familiar with”, “understand” what “Kāma Guṇa” is (or when one becomes attached) and that it isn’t something that should be (upadana) liked or desired for. 

 

Last night, I came across a sutta where it mentions the Noble 8 Fold Path is for giving up Kāma Guṇa.

 

SN 45.30: Uttiyasutta

 

From the parallel: “The Buddha taught the eightfold path in order to give up the 5 kinds of sensual stimulation“

 

“Imesaṁ kho, uttiya, pañcannaṁ kāmaguṇānaṁ pahānāya ayaṁ ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo bhāvetabbo”ti.

“This is the noble eightfold path that should be developed to give up these five kinds of sensual stimulation.”

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Lal]

“(A) My question is, are there any sense objects rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā “by itself” (without the mind or citta) that can definitely be said to have the “inherent / intrinsic” qualities or characteristics of “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” or that’s “agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, and leading to desire?”

• The answer is no. External things (rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā) do not have kāmaguṇa.
• Kāmaguṇa arise (in varying degrees) of those who have not attained Arahanthood.

“(B) Would it be appropriate to say that Kāma Guṇa is more associated with tanha, while Kāma or kāmā, kāmehi is more associated with upadana?”

• Tanha arises due to kāmaguṇa, and kāma/kāmā arise due to kāmaguṇa (kāmehi means “in/about kāma.”)
• We attach to things in this world because we perceive that happiness cannot be achieved without them. The Buddha taught that it is precisely the opposite. We tend to do immoral deeds trying to accumulate those things (i.e., wealth), which leads to suffering (via kamma vipaka.)
• A deeper point is that the “intrinsic nature of the mind” (pabhassara citta) corresponds to “Nibbanic Bliss.” We cover that “pure mind” with defilements (raga, dosa, moha) and move away from the suffering-free pure mind. 

Yes. What you quoted from the Uttiya Sutta confirms the above.

• Average humans believe that the kāmaguṇa (“iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā”) are in external things (rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā)
• If that is the case, we will never be able to remove them from those external things and attain Nibbana!
• One is able to remove them only because they arise in one’s own mind. 
• In the next post, I will start addressing these issues. It is a new approach using the pabhassara citta as the basis: “Pabhassara Citta, Radiant Mind, and Bhavaṅga.” However, I will minimize Abhidhamma so that most people will be able to understand.

[Lal]

The term “pañca kāmaguṇāna” needs to be understood. 

• “pañca kāma” refers to the five sensory inputs and attachment to them: rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā.
• That attachment is based on the six characteristics (“iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā”).
• The “uneducated average person (puthujjana)” attributes those six characteristics to the EXTERNAL THINGS: rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā. In other words, they attribute “pañca kāmaguṇāna” to those external rupa, sadda, gandha, etc.
• For example, they think “pleasure is in owning a house or car,” “pleasure is in the music that one is listening to,” the food one is eating,” etc.

The Buddha taught that EXTERNAL THINGS (houses, cars, music, food…) do not have “pañca kāmaguṇāna.” They arise in the mind because of one’s ignorance of Buddha Dhamma. 

• It may take a few posts to explain that in detail.

In a comment above, I stated: “Actually, I am still not on board with Arahant even having “kama sanna.” If there is not even “kama sanna” then An Arahant would not experience any taste! I am still trying to verify it. “

• Even an Arahant would have the “kama sanna,” i.e., experience the sweetness of sugar, bitterness of lemon, etc. 
• That “sanna about the sensory input” depends on the “bhavanga” that one is born with. Those born as humans will have the sanna of the sweetness of sugar, bitterness of lemon, etc. 
• Attachment to a sensory input comes after (within that citta; for example, cakkhu vinnana) when a puthujjana attaches to that sanna with “pañca kāmaguṇāna.” An Arahant has removed “pañca kāmaguṇāna” and, thus, would not attach.
• Anyway, this needs to be explained step-by-step.

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[LayDhammaFollower]

Thank you so much @TripleGemStudent for starting this thread. It helps everyone to measure their understanding from different angles.

Lal said,

“Even an Arahant would have the “kama sanna,” i.e., experience the sweetness of sugar, bitterness of lemon, etc.”

Until now, I was under the impression that Arhant would experience the sweetness of sugar called kama guna.

I also assumed that kama guna is an objective property of a sense object, not a subjective property.

[Lal]

Yes. Two of my older posts were not entirely correct (I think it was just one post that had it wrong, with the other one not being clear) I had not read them for a few years. I have corrected the main issues in them.

Rather than making more revisions to those two posts to make it clear, I think it is better to start from a different angle that may provide a better understanding. That series of posts will start with the next post. I will make further adjustments to those two old posts as we proceed. So, it is better to wait until I post the next post.

• “Kama guna” (“iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” OR “.. likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. …” ) are defilements that arise in the mind. That happens because one believes external rupa, sadda, gandha, rasa, and phottabba (touches) intrinsically have “enticing properties.”
• If kama guna are objective (inherent) properties of a sense object, we will not be able to remove them.
• The Buddha explained that precisely the opposite is true. kama guna are what we subjectively assign to “mind-pleasing things.” See my two comments above. That is why it is possible to remove them from our minds.

Anyone living in the kama loka would have “kama sanna.” Attchement to “kama sanna” with “kama guna” does not occur for an Arahant. (However, an Arahant in Arahant-phala samapatti or nirodha samapatti would not have “kama sanna” either.)

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[TripleGemStudent]

You welcome LDF, I do hope / wish for what I have gained from the dhamma can be shared with others and anything discussed relating to the dhamma can be useful / helpful to others out there. 

It was mentioned:

• Average humans believe that the kāmaguṇa (“iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā”) are in external things (rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā)
• If that is the case, we will never be able to remove them from those external things and attain Nibbana!
• One is able to remove them only because they arise in one’s own mind. “

That is very well said Sir. 

• “The “uneducated average person (puthujjana)” attributes those six characteristics to the EXTERNAL THINGS: rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā. In other words, they attribute “pañca kāmaguṇāna” to those external rupa, sadda, gandha, etc.” 

We believe those six characteristics are inherent in the external things rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā, but actually those six characteristics arises from our mind projecting to external objects. 

• “The Buddha taught that EXTERNAL THINGS (houses, cars, music, food…) do not have “pañca kāmaguṇāna.” They arise in the mind because of one’s ignorance of Buddha Dhamma. “

 

• “The term “pañca kāmaguṇāna” needs to be understood”. 

After learning more about “pañca kāmaguṇāna” and seeing the teaching from sutta’s that the Noble 8 Fold Path and cattāro satipaṭṭhānā should be developed to give up kamaguna. I believe the knowledge / understanding of kāmaguṇā would be beneficial to one’s understanding and practice of the dhamma.

From the Sambādhasutta, I’m not exactly sure how I should interpret the English translation “confinement” being used in the sutta. But anyways, it teaches kāmaguṇa as the idea of confinement and that there’s an opportunity amid confinement. 

Sambādhasutta (AN 9.42)

‘Sambādhe gataṁ okāsaṁ,

Avidvā bhūrimedhaso;

‘The opportunity amid confinement

was discovered by the Buddha of vast intelligence

Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.

These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation that are called ‘confinement’ by the Buddha.

Now, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption.

To this extent the Buddha spoke of an opportunity amid confinement in a qualified sense.”

 

From Sakuṇagghisutta:

Sakuṇagghisutta (SN 47.6)

It teaches kāmaguṇa is the domain of Mara and cattāro satipaṭṭhānā is the domain of our fathers. The sutta helped me to come up with the idea of using kāmaguṇa as a warning / danger sign for possible attachment and/or that I have became attached (tanha) and have entered Mara’s domain where I can be unwholesomely influenced. When that happens, I need to put in more effort to carry out the 4 supreme efforts and satipaṭṭhānā to enter back into our fathers domain where Mara cannot influence or get a hold of me. <br /><br />

“So, mendicants, don’t roam out of your own territory into the domain of others. If you roam out of your own territory into the domain of others, Māra will find a vulnerability and get hold of you.

And what is not a mendicant’s own territory but the domain of others? It’s the five kinds of sensual stimulation. (kāmaguṇa)

This is not a mendicant’s own territory but the domain of others.
You should roam inside your own territory, the domain of your fathers. If you roam inside your own territory, the domain of your fathers, Māra won’t find a vulnerability or get hold of you.

And what is a mendicant’s own territory, the domain of the fathers? It’s the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.”

 

I often see Buddhist practitioners out there asking questions on how one should practice meditation relating to the senses and sense objects. Myself don’t focus on and know much about the subject, but now with a updated understanding of kāmaguṇa, I believe it could be used to help me better learn and comprehend the dhamma teachings on the senses and sense objects.

• “The answer is no. External things (rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā, phoṭṭhabbā) do not have kāmaguṇa”. 
• “The Buddha taught that EXTERNAL THINGS (houses, cars, music, food…) do not have “pañca kāmaguṇāna. 

I believe in the Kathāvatthu, it says that the sense-objects themselves are not kama;

Points of Controversy of Sense-Desires (Kv 8.4)

Attheva suttantoti? Āmantā. Tena hi na vattabbaṁ—“pañcevāyatanā kāmā”ti

“Hence it is wrong to say that just the five kinds of sense-objects constitute sense-desires.” 

 

After learning more about kāmaguṇa and reading this verse again.

“Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,

Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke;

Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,

Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;

Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandan”ti.”

From the sutta, the English word “beautiful” being used for the translation of citrāni caught my attention and felt that the word “beautiful” or yāni citrāni loke could possibly be some clue or idea that could be used for to further clarify kāmaguṇa and kāma / kāmā / kāmehi.    

Currently it’s my belief that when it’s said or taught by an Ariya in the sutta’s that something is beautiful, desirable and so on or yāni citrāni loke. Besides the implied mundane / conventional meaning of something that’s “beautiful, desirable, etc”, to me, it’s highly possible that the deeper understanding or meaning of those words could be referring to kāmaguṇa. Because now when I see the the words “beautiful”, “desirable” and similar words being used in the sutta’s, I feel that it could be referring to kāmaguṇa since something is only “beautiful” or “desirable” based on that living being perceiving it to be and not the object itself. 

(A) Could yāni citrāni loke and kāmaguṇa have a similar meaning? 

I have also come across a sutta where “yāni citrāni” shows up:

Aññāsikoṇḍaññattheragāthā (Thag 15.1)

 

“There are so many pretty things in this vast territory

They disturb one’s thoughts, it seems to me,

attractive, provoking lust

 

“Bahūni loke citrāni,

asmiṁ pathavimaṇḍale;

Mathenti maññe saṅkappaṁ,

subhaṁ rāgūpasaṁhitaṁ.

 

The way now I would read this verse; “Kamaguna is vast in our world, they seem attractive, provoking lust and disturbing our thoughts”. 

 

(B) I thought of something, could the teaching of kāmaguṇa be connected with the teachings of the ayatana’s? Like how our senses are indriya’s, then becomes ayatana’s when kāmaguṇa arises and kāmaguṇa describes this manifestation of ayatana’s or something?

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Lal]

“(A) Could yāni citrāni loke and kāmaguṇa have a similar meaning? “

The verse is in the “Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63)“

• The English translation there is not bad. 
• “Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke” means “The world’s pretty things don’t have sensual pleasures.”
• P.S. Sensual pleasures are mind-made due to kāmaguṇa arising in the mind.

 

“(B) I thought of something, could the teaching of kāmaguṇa be connected with the teachings of the ayatana’s? Like how our senses are indriya’s, then becomes ayatana’s when kāmaguṇa arises and kāmaguṇa describes this manifestation of ayatana’s or something?”

• Yes. Sense faculties (indriya) turn into ayatana when a mind attaches to a sensual object. That attachment happens because of the six types of “kāmaguṇa” (six characteristics: “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā”) that arise in the mind.
• For an Arahant, indriyas do not turn into ayatana because none of those six characteristics arise in the Arahant‘s mind. So, they see, hear, etc., but no attachment.

[TripleGemStudent]

I would like to share some of my current thinking and understanding of kamaguna for feedback and scrutiny. Currently without going into all the / further details that I have in mind and if I were to give a quick explanation on kāmaguna, kāma assāda, kāma and the connections between them, it would be that;  

 

Kāmaguna = are 5 sense objects that a living being in the kama loka regards / considers / views / experiences as “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” or likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. And when we regard / view / considers / experiences one of the 5 sense objects with the 6 characteristics “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā”, kāma assāda arises. 

 

Kāma assāda = is the piti, sukha, somanassa or the “gratification” that arises from kamaguna.  

 

Currently one of the reasons why I believe kāma assāda arises from kāmaguna is based on what’s translated in the sutta’s.

 

MN: 13 Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta

 

Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.

 

A) The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.

 

B) Now the pleasure and joy that arise dependent on these five cords of sensual pleasure are the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures.

 

C) Whatever pleasure, whatever happiness arises in consequence of these five strands of sense-pleasures, this is the satisfaction in sense-pleasures.

 

From reading and contemplating on the English translations, I get the idea that kamaguna is kama assada and vice verse. Kamaguna which is one’s own avija, tanha relating to the 5 sense objects is the source of or what gives rise to kama assada. Both kāmaguna and kāma assāda are both mind made! 

 

What I just mentioned about kāmaguna is kāma assāda and vice verse is of great importance to me and would like to ask for other’s thoughts and feedback. 

 

Kāma = is the intention of seeking or clinging to kāmaguna or kāma assāda. When one isn’t directly experiencing the 5 sense objects as kāmaguna, kāma is what generates / regenerates the experience of the 5 sense objects that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing or kamaguna’s which gives rise to kama assada.

 

*** So basically when we experience kāmaguna, it gives rise to kāma assāda (this is an automatic process) and then we carry out or engage in kāma (which we have control over) to continue experiencing or regenerate kāmaguna and kāma assāda. ***

 

 

Some other observations for scrutiny and feedback.

 

Kāma is like vaci sankhara, while kāmaguna is like mano sankhara. 

 

Kāma is like upadana, while kāmaguna is like tanha. 

 

Kāmaguna is samphassa ja vedana and kāma is what perpetuates samphassa ja vedana. 

[Lal]

I will respond tomorrow after the new post is published.

[TripleGemStudent]

I should’ve mentioned this with my earlier post, but would like to add this since it’s my believe what was mentioned in my previous post and the quoted writing from the PD post below could be consider coming to the similar general idea or understanding.

Nibbāna – Rāgakkhaya Dosakkhaya Mohakkhaya – Part 1

“Burning” (Tāpa) Has Root Cause in Rāga (Greed) and Dosa (Anger)

6. We attach to things that we like. This “attachment” is described in several ways by the Buddha: icchā, taṇhā, nandi, piya, kāma, etc. When exposed to such ‘likable things” in this world, we become joyful and try to get more of them, even using immoral deeds. Therein lies the problem.

• Those things in this world that lead to such attachment and joyful feelings are called “things with kāmaguṇa“ or “characteristics/sources of kāma.”

It’s my current understanding that those “joyful feelings“, “likable things” and “we attach to things that we like” are kāmaguna and kāma assāda. “Try to get more of them, even using immoral deeds. Therein lies the problem.”  That’s kāma.

[Lal]

I have revised #6 of that post as follows:

“Those things in this world that lead to such attachment and joyful feelings are those to which our ignorant minds assign “kāmaguṇa“ or “characteristics/sources of kāma.”

• Hopefully, that will make it clear. Thanks for pointing it out.

I am revising the post “Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā).” I will post here when the revision is complete.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TripleGemStudent

[TripleGemStudent]

“Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.”

“The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.”

 

I have read over this line, I believe enough times. What I’m believing of seeing and understanding is that sukham, somanassa “can” arise from kāmaguna and this sukham, somanassa that arises from kāmaguna is kāma assāda.

 

I was wondering if Lal or anyone can help me with a second opinion or confirmation that I have understood properly what was mentioned in Pali and translated in English that’s quoted at the beginning of this post. I’m really afraid of misunderstanding or getting this wrong.

[Lal]

1. What you need to focus on is the following:

1. “kāmaguṇa” are not intrinsic to the external object (arammana) being discussed. Those arise in one’s mind.
2. However, similar (but not exactly the same) kāmaguṇa arise in the minds of a given species. 

2. Let me give an extreme example to make that clear.

• A pig likes to eat all sorts of garbage, including feces. That is due to “kama sanna” for pigs.
• Humans are repelled even seeing feces. That is because “kama sanna” for humans is different.
• So, I hope that makes it clear that our revulsion for feces is not intrinsic to the feces; in the same way, the “attractiveness” of feces for pigs is not intrinsic to the feces. 

3. That “species-specific” kama sanna arises automatically for anyone belonging to a given species based on the “natural bhavanga” one is born with. 

• That is why a living Arahant (not in Arahant phala samadhi) likely also tastes sugar as sweet and lemon as sour (per kama sanna of humans.) However, their minds do not attach to any arammana with greed or revulsion.
• Furthermore, an Arahant in Arahant phala samadhi is unaware of any external arammana.
• Thus, even though Arahants have removed kāmaguṇa from their minds (and would not attach to any arammana,) it is likely that they automatically generate kama sanna. Of course, this needs to be confirmed by an Arahant.

[TripleGemStudent]

Thank you for your advice and recommendation Sir,

• “kāmaguṇa” are not intrinsic to the external object (arammana) being discussed. Those arise in one’s mind.”

That’s my current understanding of kāmaguṇa and it’s very clear to me that kāmaguṇa are not intrinsic to or in any internal or external object. That’s why I made the point that kāmaguṇa are mind made, just like kāma assāda. Kāmaguṇa arises in our minds when our defilements make contact (phassa) with a rupa or more specifically the 5 sense objects where we believe that 5 sense object is with the six characteristics “iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā” and when that happens kāma assāda also arises. In fact kāmaguṇa can change for the human being in a very short time. 

Based on the example it was made about the pigs, I also have thought of many examples. I was planning on bringing up some of these examples and more thoughts on kāmaguṇa at a later time. But currently I just want to take things step by step before I get ahead of myself. My thoughts on kāmaguṇa that I have in mind but haven’t written it all out comes to the similar general ideas or understanding as what you have mentioned here and taught on PD. 

Currently, I really need a second opinion or feedback to make sure that I have understood something properly. I’m going to try ask the question again, but I’ll try it in a different way. I’m sincerely sorry if I keep repeating myself with this question, but this is something that I really need to make sure that I’m not mistaken and have understood this correctly.   

“Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.”

“The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.”

Would Lal sir or anyone here disagree with me or feel that I’m mistaken if I believe / said or taught based on what I just quoted in Pali and the English translation that sukha, somanassa, piti “can” or “does” arise from kāmaguṇa and the sukha, somanassa, piti that arises from kāmaguṇa is kāma assāda?

If there are no comments, I would take that so far others are not able to notice or see any mistakes in my discernment and understanding of what was quoted in Pali and the English translation given. 

[Lal]

I am not sure why you keep quoting this particular translation. Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with the word-by-word translation. But it needs to be evaluated in the context of someone below the Anagami stage.

“Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ—ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo.”

Your quoted translation: “The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.”

Then you wrote: “Would Lal sir or anyone here disagree with me or feel that I’m mistaken if I believe / said or taught based on what I just quoted in Pali and the English translation that sukha, somanassa, piti “can” or “does” arise from kāmaguṇa and the sukha, somanassa, piti that arises from kāmaguṇa is kāma assāda?”

• Yes. “..sukha, somanassa, piti does arise from kāmaguṇa.
• Yes. “..sukha, somanassa, piti that arises from kāmaguṇa is kāma assāda.”

But for both those to hold, kāmaguṇa must arise in the person. That does happen in the case of a puthujjana and even in the case of a Sotapanna/Sakadagami because both are not released from the kama loka. 

• But that will not happen to an Anagami/Arahant since they are released from the kama loka, i.e., they will never be reborn in kama loka.
• But unless an Anagami or an Arahant is in a jhana samapatti or a phala samapatti, they will still have the “kama sanna,” as I explained above.

Anyway, I plan to discuss these issues in upcoming posts. 

[TripleGemStudent]

Thank you very much Sir! 

• “But for both those to hold, kāmaguṇa must arise in the person.”

I’m in total agreement on this!

Thank you once again. 

[Lal]

I went through the following two posts carefully. Both of them need to be rewritten. I have trimmed the content in the two posts until I rewrite them.

Kāma Guna, Kāma, Kāma Rāga, Kāmaccandha

Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā)

• Thanks to TGS and Lang for pointing out the issues.

[TripleGemStudent]

Kāmasaññā

 

Initially seeing here the topic of kāmasaññā being discussed on the forums. Due to not having knowledge of or have put in the time or effort to gain knowledge about topic; wasn’t planning on putting too much time or focus on the topic until at a later time. In the end felt there were some uncertainty in the answers to the questions regarding kāmasaññā. Thought of siding tracking and taking a quick look into kāmasaññā, not knowing what to expect from just “taking a quick look” turned out to be beyond expectations. It’s my belief what transpired could potentially be of benefit to others that are interested in the topic. I can’t say I know or understand everything about kāmasaññā, but just hope to share what I have come across for other’s discernment and feedback.

 

It was mentioned:

 

• “Actually, I am still not on board with Arahant even having “kama sanna.” If there is not even “kama sanna” then An Arahant would not experience any taste! I am still trying to verify it.”
• This is a tricky issue because we don’t have any Arahants to verify this for us.”

From what I have come to learn, it’s my belief that kāmasaññā doesn’t arise in an Arahant. If that’s the case, then how does Arahant’s taste? Would that be the tricky issue involved? 

I hope sufficient materials and evidence will be provided by the end of this post, hoping the information can be of use and help for  others knowledge and on the path. 

I would like to mention that I haven’t put in the effort or focus into learning Pali besides some important Pali Buddha dhamma words. I can’t say I have the qualifications based on academic standards interpreting sutta’s or even being able to currently understand Pali or the sutta’s without English translations and interpretations.

What’s shared is just based on what I can piece together and understand on my own. I’m aware sometimes I might not have thought of or see where there might be errors or inconsistencies in what I believe in. I hope what is shared can be scrutinize and reviewed by others for feedback.

At a later time it’s mentioned:

• In a comment above, I stated: “Actually, I am still not on board with Arahant even having “kama sanna.” If there is not even “kama sanna” then An Arahant would not experience any taste! I am still trying to verify it. “
• Even an Arahant would have the “kama sanna,” i.e., experience the sweetness of sugar, bitterness of lemon, etc. 

 

From Saññāsutta, in the parallel, “Antidotes for harmful perceptions”. 

 

Saññāsutta (AN 6.110)

 

“Mendicants, there are these three things.“Tayome, bhikkhave, dhammā.”<br />

 

“Sensual, malicious, and cruel perceptions. Kāmasaññā, byāpādasaññā, vihiṁsāsaññā.”<br />

 

From what I can discern and see is kāmasaññā being mentioned along with the other unwholesome states of mind. So far, this leads me to believe that kāmasaññā isn’t just simply related to the possibility of tasting sweetness or other taste, but the main relationship is with defilements or akusala. 

 

In the same sutta, it gives me the idea of kāmasaññā is something that should be given up or renounced. 

 

“You should develop perceptions of renunciation to give up sensual perceptions, perceptions of good will to give up malicious perceptions, and perceptions of harmlessness to give up cruel perceptions.”

 

“Kāmasaññāya pahānāya nekkhammasaññā bhāvetabbā, byāpādasaññāya pahānāya abyāpādasaññā bhāvetabbā, vihiṁsāsaññāya pahānāya avihiṁsāsaññā bhāvetabbā.”

 

 

 

From Anupubbanirodhasutta:

 

Anupubbanirodhasutta (AN 9.31)

 

“For someone who has attained the first absorption, sensual perceptions have ceased.”

 

“Paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ samāpannassa kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti;” 

 

 

Just when I was about to complete and post this writing. Unexpectedly came across this PD post. 

 

Finest Manōmaya Kaya of an Arūpāvacara Brahma

 

• 2. When one gets to the first jhāna, one “transcends” (or go beyond) the kāma lōka or “sense sphere”. Our human realm is one of 11 realms in the kāma lōka as we discussed before.

• In the Anupubbanirodha Sutta (AN 9.31): “Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa   kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti” OR ““When one has attained the first jhāna, perceptions of sensuality (kāma saññā) stop from arising“.

 

For us it’s evident what the answer is, but my question is when the perception of kāmasaññā stop from arising, does this mean when one attains the first absorption, perceptions of taste or the other sense organs have ceased?

 

Reading the English translation of this sutta gives me the idea that the sutta is teaching the progression of unwholesome / akusala thoughts, speech and actions and kāmasaññā is involved. 

 

Sanidānasutta (SN 14.12)

 

“The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.”

 

“Kāmadhātuṁ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā, kāmasaññaṁ paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaṅkappo, kāmasaṅkappaṁ paṭicca uppajjati kāmacchando, kāmacchandaṁ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariḷāho, kāmapariḷāhaṁ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariyesanā.”

 

 

The possible tricky issue that was mentioned, how does Arahant’s taste if kāmasaññā doesn’t arise in an Arahant. I believe the answer could be in the sutta below, “rasasaññā” but I’m not 100% certain since this is only my belief so far without other’s feedback or help.  

 

Mahāniddesa Aṭṭhakavagga; 2. Guhaṭṭhakasuttaniddesa

 

Saññaṁ pariññā vitareyya oghanti. Saññāti kāmasaññā byāpādasaññā vihiṁsāsaññā nekkhammasaññā abyāpādasaññā avihiṁsāsaññā rūpasaññā saddasaññā gandhasaññā rasasaññā phoṭṭhabbasaññā dhammasaññā—yā evarūpā saññā sañjananā sañjānitattaṁ—ayaṁ vuccati saññā. Saññaṁ pariññāti saññaṁ tīhi pariññāhi parijānitvā—ñātapariññāya, tīraṇapariññāya, pahānapariññāya.

Katamā ñātapariññā? Saññaṁ jānāti—ayaṁ kāmasaññā, ayaṁ byāpādasaññā, ayaṁ vihiṁsāsaññā, ayaṁ nekkhammasaññā, ayaṁ abyāpādasaññā, ayaṁ avihiṁsāsaññā, ayaṁ rūpasaññā, ayaṁ saddasaññā, ayaṁ gandhasaññā, ayaṁ rasasaññā, ayaṁ phoṭṭhabbasaññā, ayaṁ dhammasaññāti jānāti passati—ayaṁ ñātapariññā.

 

From what I can understand and see so far, it’s my believe and understanding that kāmasaññā arises when defilement comes into play, like kamaguna, kama, sankappa raga, and so forth. I would agree that kāmasaññā doesn’t arise in Arahants. Unless there’s another kāmasaññā or it means something else that I’m not aware of. When Arahants taste, smell and the other senses, I believe it would just be the 6 sanna’s mentioned. But I’m not 100% sure since I don’t know exactly what’s being said in the sutta.

 

In the end, came across in the Nibbedhikasutta and other several sutta’s that aren’t linked (mentioned) below where the 6 sanna’s, “rūpasaññā, saddasaññā, gandhasaññā, rasasaññā, phoṭṭhabbasaññā, dhammasaññā,” are addressed.

 

Nibbedhikasutta (AN 6.63)

 

“There are these six perceptions: perceptions of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.”

 

“Chayimā, bhikkhave, saññā— rūpasaññā, saddasaññā, gandhasaññā, rasasaññā, phoṭṭhabbasaññā, dhammasaññā.”

 

 

Saṅgītisutta (DN 33)

 

“Six classes of perception: perceptions of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.”

 

“Cha saññākāyā— rūpasaññā, saddasaññā, gandhasaññā, rasasaññā, phoṭṭhabbasaññā, dhammasaññā.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Lal]

Good work!

I will discuss some of those suttas in the upcoming posts. It is critically important to grasp some fundamental concepts to get a self-consistent picture. That is why I stopped revising a couple of posts on kama guna. It is necessary to discuss some relevant issues first.

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[LayDhammaFollower]

Thank you @TripleGemStudent and @Lal for diving into this issue and raising important questions.

Thank you TGS for posting relevant excerpts from different related sutta.

[Author]

Posts