From the Dispeller of Delusion(Sammohavinodani) p9-11:
Rupa sadda (visible data, sounds)..there are none which are
disagreeable that are born of profitable kamma; all are agreeable
only....But a disputatious speaker (vitandavadin) said 'There is no
intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable'It is according to the likings
of these or those individuals)[and the vitandavadin goes on to give
an example of how to people in some distant place worms are
considered a delicacy whereas most people find them repulsive , he
also says the same about peacocks flesh].
He should be asked 'But how? Do you say that there is no
distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or
disagreeable?' 'Yes: I say there is not?..[
it continues a little
and then refutes the vitantavadin (sectarian of another school)]
''It is through perversion of perception that the same object is
agreeable for one and disagreeable for another. But there is the
distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or
disagreeable'.......the elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: 'The
agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to vipaka
(kamma result) only, not according to javana (impulsion that follows
the vipaka). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception
(sannavipallasa)only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same
agreeable; that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same
agreeable. Only by way of vipaka however is it rightly
distinguishable. For resultant consciousness (vipaka citta) cannot
mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that
arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen.
Although those of wrong view on seeing such exalted objects as
the enlightened one(buddha) shut their eyes and feel domanassa
(unpleasant feeling)[arising during the javana stage]and on hearing
the Dhamma they stop their ears nevertheless their eye-consciouness,
ear-consciousness , etc are only profitable kamma result (vipaka).
Although dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become
joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their
eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose
consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue
consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable
It is true that often we cannot be sure whether the present vipaka
the result of kusala kamma or akusala kamma. ).
And if we still think in wholes and situation we cannot understand
For instance, take the case of holding a soft warm dogshit in the hand and how most
people think this is entirely akusala. However, the commentary (see
sammohavinodani p11 )notes that in such a case
that the vipaka through body sense is actually kusala vipaka(because
soft and warm) while through the eyesense and nose sense akusala- for
obvious reasons. In a short moment these different vipakas alternate
many times, but one might not be aware of how it is changing.
Even in the above example someone might object and say 'what if
there were little hard bits in the shit; wouldn't it be akusala
through the bodysense then?' And, yes maybe it would in that case.
But the examples are given to help us see these matters so we can
study dhammas directly and see for ourselves, not to cover every
possible hypothetical case.
Or someone is wearinga price diamond ring. Through teh bodysense it is akusala viapka (very hard) on finger but they are so absorbed in teh story , the idea of this tresure on their finger that they are not aware at all of the realities.