Do have a care with this proposition. Just because Bhikkhu Bodhi consistently translates the kamagunas to "sensual pleasure" does not mean that the 2nd "sensual pleasure" in SN 36.19 means kamaguna. The Pali says -In SN 36.19 Pañcakaṅga Sutta the Buddha tells Ven. Ānanda that whatever pleasure or happiness arises in dependence on the five strands of sensual pleasure is called sensual pleasure.
I absolutely agree with the MN 66 proposition, but I don't see how the critique of kamasukha and its disappearance in Jhana is relevant to the issue of what the kamagunas mean. If you are suggesting that "kamagunas" mean only pleasurable forms etc and that it excludes painful and neutral forms etc, does this mean you assert, as before, that in Jhana one is also conscious of these painful and neutral forms etc? We've gone over this before in your earlier thread. The Mahanidana Sutta, DN 15 does not allow the other 2 types of feelings to intrude when a pleasant feeling is felt. When there is Jhana, there is only mental pleasure to the exclusion of any other types of feelings. Since feelings have to be sahagata with the particular consciousness (per MN 43), the absence of other feelings must necessitate the absence of consciousness of the other ayatanas.Yaṃ kho, ānanda, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṃ somanassaṃ— idaṃ vuccati kāmasukhaṃ.
As for your citation of SN 47.6 above, don't you think it's another petitio principii to cite this as proof that kamagunas mean only pleasurable material ayatanas? Again you're capitalising on the English translation's use of "sensual pleasure" to suggest to the reader that kamasukha is being imported. Had you not abridged the passage and given it in full, this is what the Pali says -And what, for a monk, is not his own range and is the domain of others? The five strands of sensual pleasure.... These, for a monk, are not his own range and are the domain of others.
It's highly misleading, the manner you chopped up the sutta. It may not be obvious to the casual reader of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, but when BB renders kamaguna as "sensual pleasure", he is not suggesting that we read it as a "feeling" but as the thing that gives rise to feeling. The way you're conflating the English translations of SN 36.19, MN 66 and SN 47.6 introduces misleading readings of "sensual pleasure", when the Pali draws a clear distinction between kamaguna and kamasukha.Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, mā agocare carittha paravisaye. Agocare, bhikkhave, carataṃ paravisaye lacchati māro otāraṃ, lacchati māro ārammaṇaṃ. Ko ca, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno agocaro paravisayo? Yadidaṃ— pañca kāmaguṇā. Katame pañca? Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā, sotaviññeyyā saddā…pe… ghānaviññeyyā gandhā…pe… jivhāviññeyyā rasā…pe… kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā— ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno agocaro paravisayo.
And this brings us back full circle to your insistence that some other meaning is to be preferred to the plain grammatical construction of the kamaguna formula.