Hi Bodom
On Ven Nyanatiloka's definition -
2. Objective sensuality is, in the canonical texts, mostly called kāma-guṇa, 'cords (or strands) of sensuality'.
"There are 5 cords of sensuality: the visible objects, cognizable by eye-consciousness, that are desirable, cherished, pleasant, lovely, sensuous and alluring; the sounds ... smells ... tastes ... bodily impressions cognizable by body-consciousness, that are desirable .... " (D. 33; M. 13, 26, 59, 66).
The Pali pericope has this -
Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā—
cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā,
sotaviññeyyā saddā…
ghānaviññeyyā gandhā…
jivhāviññeyyā rasā…
kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā.
According to Warder (1974, p61)-
When an adjective, or (all the) adjectives, follow its noun this usually indicates that it is being "predicated" of the noun, or in other words that the attribute in question is being emphasised. One should then translate "... who is/which is ..."
.
This explains the CPD entry for the kamagunas -
kāma-guṇa, m. and n. (mostly) pl. [ts.; Buddh. sa. kā-
maguṇa, cf. SWTF s.v.], the (five) strands of sensual
pleasure, (cf. Sn-trsl. II ad 50-51), i.e. the five objects of
sensual pleasure viz. rūpa, sadda, gandha, rasa, poṭ-
ṭhabba, cf. kāma, q.v. s.v.; — exeg.: definitions of ~:
pane' ime ~ā ... cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā
manāpā + ... sotaviññeyyā saddā ... ghānaviññey-
yā gandhā ... jivhāviññeyyā rasa ... kāyaviññeyyā
phoṭṭhabbā, D I 245,15 foll. ...
Essentially, the kamagunas are
all forms, sounds, smells, tastes and tactilities.
I think the problem with most English translators who are no longer familiar with the traditional "that" (restrictive) versus "which" (non-restrictive) distinction may not quite get what Warder is trying to say.
You can see the same grammatical form being used in the First Sermon to define the Two Yokes.
Dveme, bhikkhave, antā pabbajitena na sevitabbā. Katame dve?
Yo cāyaṃ kāmesu kāmasukhallikānuyogo hīno gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasaṃhito,
yo cāyaṃ attakilamathānuyogo dukkho anariyo anatthasaṃhito
Clearly, the Buddha did not intend to say that some forms of attachment to sensual pleasure were not base, vulgar, common, ignoble or unprofitable, nor that some forms of self-torture were not painful, ignoble or unprofitable.
It's quite an uncomfortable idea that the Buddha would take such an uncompromising attitude towards all the material constituents of our Kamaloka (see SN 35.82), but there you have it.
The crucial instruction for how the kamagunas can be enjoyed or met, without triggering the anusayas, is given in passages 4 to 9 of MN 152. It's good old Satipatthana to the rescue. Does this mean that we can have our cake and eat it? To be discussed, just as the Buddha had to address Arittha's views on this in MN 22.