Hello again Bhante, 
I know you quoted Erik, but I’m going to jump in here, since you addressed the points I made as well.
Which instance of the plural kāma in AN6.63 are you referring to? I’m not sure if I see it. Please clarify.
Either way, if it’s there, I would almost call it the exception that proves the rule. Let’s assume there’s one (or a few) instance in the canon of kāmā in the plural meaning ‘desires’. Then considering the dozens of times where it refers to the objects, chances are pretty small it refers to desires in the jhana formula.
But your contact has a good point reglardless, namely that context determines the meaning, as I also said. But context determines the number as well, so these things are not unrelated.
I agree, but who are guilty of doing that, that’s the question.
So let’s consider some contexts instead of just the number. I’ll share my own translations because Bodhi as well as Sujato translate kāmā and kāmasukha both as ‘sensual pleasure’, which is not wrong per se, but it is somewhat confusing in this case.
First sutta for context:
“Udāyī, there are the objects of the five senses (kāmaguṇa). What five? Sights that can be seen with the sense of sight, sounds that can be heard with the sense of hearing, odors that can be smelt with the sense of smell, flavors that can be tasted with the sense of taste, and tangibles that can be felt with the sense of touch, that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasing, sensual, and alluring. Those are the objects of the five senses.
The pleasure and happiness coming from these objects of the five senses is called sensual pleasure (kāmasukha), shitty pleasure, common pleasure, and ignoble pleasure. That kind of pleasure you should not pursue, develop, or cultivate. You should fear that kind of pleasure, I tell you.
After you get fully separated (vivicc’eva) from sensory experiences (kāmehi) and unskillful qualities, you attain the first jhana, where there is delight and bliss caused by the separation, to which the mind moves and holds on.
That is what is meant by the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of separation, the pleasure of peace, and the pleasure of awakening. That kind of pleasure you should pursue, develop, and cultivate. You should not fear that kind of pleasure, I tell you.” (MN66)
It seems clear to me that kāma in “separated from sensory experiences (kāmehi)” refers to the objective experiences mentioned only two sentences before, not to “desires”.
Similarly:
“And what is physical delight? The delight that arises dependent on these objects of the five senses (kāmaguṇa), that is what is meant by physical delight.
And what is non-physical delight? Then, after you get fully separated from sensory experiences (kāmehi) and unskillful states of mind, you attain the first jhana, where there is delight and bliss caused by the separation, to which the mind moves and holds on. After the moving and holding subside, you attain the second jhana, where the mind is confident within and at one, not moving or holding on, so there is just delight and bliss caused by the unification. That is what is meant by non-physical delight.”(SN36.31)
This also aligns with pīti in context of samādhi being called pītimana in various different contexts, meaning “with a delighted mind”. Not body.
In the same vein (quoting Sujato because I haven’t translated this text):
"The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation (kāmaguṇa) is called sensual pleasure (kāmasukha). There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t acknowledge that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer than that.
And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures (kāmehi), secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. This is a pleasure that is finer than that." (SN36.19)
This is how I read this: The bliss and happiness of jhanas is better than the best sex, music, food, bodily feelings, smells, sights, and so forth, because they are pure mental experiences of bliss. I don’t understand how the pīti and sukha would be more pleasant bodily experiences than the most pleasant bodily experiences…
So also here “secluded from sensual pleasures” refers to the objects of the senses. This is also why the jhanas, as I said before, are called “the bliss of seclusion” from the five senses, “rapture and bliss born of seclusion” from the five senses.
Anyway, I don’t want to talk about kāma all day :D, so I’ll just leave it at those three examples. But there are more, I recall, which are just as direct.
In short, it’s not only the number indicates that kāmehi means not desire but the objects; the contexts do as well—even more clearly so, I would say.
Apart from those in the Aj Brahm school of thought and those who go by the Visuddhimagga’s idea of jhana, I don’t know of anyone who accepts that plural definition kama in Margaret Cone’s dictionary.
I don’t see how that would matter. What the majority of people think is often not the right thing, anyway. Wrong ideas prevail on about every aspect of Buddhism. The Buddha also warned specifically that samadhi, of all factors of the path, is the thing that if not appreciated in later times would lead to the decline of the dhamma. (Sorry can’t remember the sutta, somewhere in AN.)
But (whether they base it on the number or context of kāmehi) we can add also the Pali-English dictionary, because it interprets vivicceva kāmehi in the ‘objective sense’. So does Cone, indeed. And so does the Critical Pali Dictionary. That’s the three most comprehensive dictionaries of Pāli all saying the same.
We can add the majority of translators as well, like I.B. Horner, Walsh, and also Bhikkhu Bodhi, who all translate “kāmehi” in the objective sense in the jhana formula, and in the plural. Only Thanissaro has “sensuality”, which is not a plural and also rather vague. (In the first jhana formula he also seems to have overlooked a grammatical detail about pītisukha, which is an adjective here, not a noun.)
So its not just “those in the Aj Brahm school of thought and those who go by the Visuddhimagga”. It is the majority interpretation it seems, in scholarly circles, anyway. There’s also plenty of people who practice the deep jhana both inside and outside Theravada.
I still would like to learn how you interpret vivicceva kāmehi, by the way, bhante. So far I’m doing almost all of the talking, but I don’t think the burden of proof is on me (or Erik) anymore.
(or according to how I understand them)
Well, it clearly uses sukha in a different sense. The word does have different senses throughout the canon, so that’s not particularly strange. For example, parinibbana is also a type of sukha but of course there are no feelings there, so it is not sukha of the jhanas, which is a feeling. In the Uppaṭipāṭikasutta sukha must stand for piti, since that is what is abandoned in the third jhana. A bit weird, but the sutta seems to somewhat forcefully try to fit the four “faculties” (dukkha, sukha, domanassa, somanassa) onto the four jhanas, which, because these two sets of four don’t really match, in some cases is done in a somewhat creative way. Like, domanassa, which is said to be abandoned in the second jhana, seemingly refers to the vitakka vicara, which is a bit strange too. But this stretching and challenging of concepts is something that the Buddha did all the time.