Coyote wrote:But pleasure is still Dukkha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Magandiya, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, and thanks to the medicine he would be cured of his leprosy: well & happy, free, master of himself, going wherever he liked. Then suppose two strong men, having grabbed him with their arms, were to drag him to a pit of glowing embers. What do you think? Wouldn't he twist his body this way & that?"
"Yes, master Gotama. Why is that? The fire is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching."
"Now what do you think, Magandiya? Is the fire painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, only now, or was it also that way before?"
"Both now & before is it painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It's just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was actually painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'"
"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'
I think we need to be very, very careful when relying on the above, which is given only as an excerpt in ATI.
What is said -
comes from the Pali -In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'
What Ven T (and BB in the MLDB) translate as "sensual pleasures" is the Pali term kāmā. The big issue here (as with the perennial Jhana debate of what kāmā means) is this -Evameva kho māgandiya atītampi addhānaṃ kāmā dukkhasamphassā ceva mahābhitāpā ca mahāpariḷāhā ca. Anāgatampi addhānaṃ kāmā dukkhasamphassā ceva mahābhitāpā ca mahāpariḷāhā ca, etarahipi paccuppannaṃ addhānaṃ kāmā dukkhasamphassā ceva mahābhitāpā ca mahāpariḷāhā ca. Ime ca māgandiya sattā kāmesu avītarāgā kāmataṇhāhi khajjamānā kāmapariḷāhena pariḍayhamānā upahatindriyā dukkhasamphassesveva1 kāmesu sukhamiti viparītasaññaṃ paccalatthuṃ.
does kāmā mean pleasurable objects cognisable by the 5 senses, or does it mean every kind of object cognisable by the 5 senses?
To me, the answer is clear. The kāmā refers to the latter, while the former is denoted by the term pañca kāmaguṇā. For example, the distinction is drawn here -
An even more stark example is given about the hypothetical, contrasting divine pleasures with human sense objects -Taṃ kiṃ maññasi māgandiya: api nu te diṭṭho vā suto vā rājā vā rājamahāmatto vā pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno kāmataṇhaṃ appahāya kāmapariḷāhaṃ appaṭivinodetvā vigatapipāso ajjhattaṃ vūpasantacitto vihāsi vā, viharati vā, viharissati vāti. No hidaṃ bho gotama.
What do you think, Magandiya? Have you ever seen or heard of a king or a king’s minister enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure who, without abandoning craving for sensual pleasures, without removing fever for sensual pleasures, was able to abide free from thirst, with a mind inwardly at peace, or who is able or who will be able to so abide?” - “No, Master Gotama
As will be obvious from the above, the Buddha is essentially saying that a devaputta endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasures (dibba pañca kāmaguṇā) would have no interest in the five cords of human sensual pleasures (mānusakā pañca kāmaguṇā), let alone human kāmā (mānusakā kāmā), ie the 5 sense object.Seyyathāpi māgandiya gahapati vā gahapatiputto vā aḍḍho mahaddhano mahābhogo pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricāreyya. Cakkhuviññeyyehi rūpehi iṭṭhehi kantehi manāpehi piyarūpehi kāmūpasaṃhitehi rajanīyehi. Sotaviñañeyyehi saddehi iṭṭhehi kantehi manāpehi piyarūpehi kāmūpasaṃhitehi rajanīyehi ghānaviññeyyehi gandhehi iṭṭhehi kantehi manāpehi piyarūpehi kāmūpasaṃhitehi rajanīyehi. Jivhāviññeyyehi rasehi iṭṭhehi kantehi manāpehi piyarūpehi kāmūpasaṃhitehi rajanīyehi. Kāyaviññeyyehi phoṭṭhabbehi iṭṭhehi kantehi manāpehi piyarūpehi kāmūpasaṃhitehi rajanīyehi.
So kāyena sucaritaṃ caritvā vācāya sucaritaṃ caritvā manasā sucaritaṃ caritvā kāyassa bhedā parammaraṇā sugatiṃ saggaṃ lokaṃ upapajjeyya devānaṃ tāvatiṃsānaṃ sahavyataṃ. So tattha nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgīto paricāreyya. So passeyya gahapatiṃ vā gahapatiputtaṃ vā pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappitaṃ samaṅgībhūtaṃ paricārayamānaṃ. Taṃ kiṃ maññasi māgandiya, api nu so devaputto nandane vane accharāsaṅghaparivuto dibbehi pañcahi kāmaguṇehi samappito samaṅgībhūto paricārayamāno amussa gahapatissa vā gahapatiputtassa vā piheyya mānusakānaṃ vā pañcannaṃ kāmaguṇānaṃ, mānusakehi vā kāmehi āvaṭṭeyyāti.
No hidaṃ bho gotama, taṃ kissa hetu: mānusakehi bho gotama kāmehi dibbā kāmā abhikkantatarā paṇītatarā cāti.
Suppose, Magandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms cognizable by the eye …
with sounds cognizable by the ear … with odours cognizable by the nose … with flavours cognizable by the tongue … with tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative of lust.
Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure. Suppose he saw a householder or a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of [human] sensual pleasure. What do you think, Magandiya? Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he return to human sensual pleasures?”
“No, Master Gotama. Why not? Because heavenly sensual pleasures are more excellent and sublime than human sensual pleasures.”
As such, I don't think MN 75 can be cited as authority that one misperceives a kāmaguṇa as pleasurable. What this sutta suggests is that the misperception occurs in relation to kāmā (ie the sense objects).
I'm also curious why the discussion has drifted from the "innateness" of hedonic tone to the question of affective tone. I thought the former was the OP's query?