Hello all–
This may already have been discussed (perhaps over-discussed), but I have never understood why kāma/kāmasukhaṃ is translated into the English “sensual pleasure” globally–that is, in all contexts. The word “sensual” in English tends to have overtones of voluptuous pleasure, quasi-sexuality–or overt sexuality–and generally suspect overtones of immorality. While there are numerous uses of kāma in the suttas the context of which would certainly justify this translation–or even a literal sexual reference (e.g. kāmesu mica cara), it seems that “sense pleasure” or “sensory pleasure” would cover so many more contexts than “sensual pleasure.” When I think of all the forms, odors, smells, sounds, tactile objects that are "wished for, desired, agreeable, pleasing, etc., so many of them do not seem to warrant the English term “sensual pleasure” but are perfectly described by “sensory pleasure” or “sense pleasure”. It’s just really difficult for me to associate a really good cup of sencha or watching my kitten play with a catnip toy as evocative of “lust,” although both are extremely pleasing and agreeable. On the other hand, a five-course French dinner with all sorts of tarts and whipped cream desserts certainly could warrant the term “sensual.” Can anyone help me to understand this? Since all English translators seem to agree, and have undoubtedly considered this question, I must be missing something in my understanding of the Dhamma.
To be honest I think there is no consensus on this. I think some teachers think it means absolute all sensory experience (letting go of the senses into pure mind experience), some that it means all “sensory pleasure”, even like listening to peaceful music, and some that it refers mostly to sexual pleasure (lust).
In general this is something I’ve noticed in Theravada Buddhist world, that pretty much there is no consensus on anything, only various interpretations of everything. Ultimately IMHO you must see for yourself or follow the teachers that interpretations you trust the most. 
Thank you, Invo–I agree with everything you say, but I was wondering if, since all the major translators seem to use the term “sensual” globally, perhaps it was my ignorance that was causing my confusion. Are there any examples you know of where the translator takes context into account and may use “sense pleasure” or “sensory pleasure” where it my be more appropriate than “sensual pleasure?” On the other hand, I’m coming to wonder if the word “translation” is not the best term to use when it comes to Pali and the suttas, given that interpretation of Dhamma–sometimes pre-existing (and occasionally doctrinaire) interpretations seem to color the translation to a consequential degree. For example, there really is a difference between whether something is a “support” for concentration or “prerequisite”; whether "the Sangha of the Blessed One practices the proper, true, correct way and is therefore composed of the eight individual types and is worthy of reverence and gifts, etc., or whether it is *those in the Sangha WHO practice the true, correct way --that is, the eight individual types, etc. who are worthy and whom one should revere; whether Bhikkhus are living the holy life, the spiritual life, or the religious life; whether we are practicing loving kindness or goodwill; whether we are “alert,” “fully aware,” or “clearly comprehending” when practicing meditation based on satipatthana, and on and on…Maybe I am demanding too much of translations of a dead language that may never have been spoken as such and whose translators are seemingly dependent on 20th century dictionaries, the commentaries, and the guidance of their teachers and tradition. I am unfortunately inclined toward a desire for academic certainty in general, and wonder if this may be an impediment rather than a virtue in Dhamma practice. 
AN6.63
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo
Passionate intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Passionate intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.
but the attentive remove desire for them.
Fortunately. If one is not clear about something, better they ask questions. If they cannot find answer - better they remember it as not thoroughly understood yet. And regards Dhamma practice - if what one learns has not brought the purpose for what it was learned yet - clearly it has not been properly implemented yet or understood.
I went down this road many years ago, trying out both of these, but ended up reverting to “sensual pleasure”. I honestly can’t recall exactly why, but IIRC there were just too many instances where kāma has an implication of sexual or otherwise indulgent desire.
The basic sense of kāma is “desire”. If you look at the uses in Sanskrit, it’s overwhelmingly “desire”, “sensual love”, “sexual desire”, and so on. Eg.:
m. wish, desire for; intention; pleasure; desired object; benefit; (sexual) love; god of love;
The Buddhist use where it is applied to “senses”
generally is secondary, and can be see as a didactic reframing: “The sense experiences that you take to be merely the organic operation of experience are in fact driven by desire in the same way that sex is.”
“Sensual desire” or “sensual pleasure” captures this in a way that “sensory” does not.
I think kāma as sensual is a good translation, precisely because they usually both have sexual undertones, but can also just mean “related to senses”.
I completely agree with you on this and have thought about it many times. In fact, when I’m investigating my own “sensual desire” I encounter a mental hurdle of sorts where the first thing that comes to mind is the sexual meaning but it so obviously isn’t applicable that I have to remind myself that “sensual” applies to all the senses.
I’ve also thought that in contexts where sexuality is the point, that “sensual desire” should be used and in contexts where it’s merely comfort, taste, odor etc., “sensory desire” or “sense desire” would go a long way to get a broader and more nuanced impression of what the Buddha is trying to convey.
I completely agree with you. However, there are many more desires that are not explicitly sexual than are explicitly sexual, so why cover them all with an umbrella of a sexual connotation?
Have you noticed how advertisements for chocolates, perfumes, gourmet restaurants, hotels, spas, etc all prominently feature the female form either overtly or implicitly (by focusing upon curvatures, spread -wide openings, the colour red etc)?
Sensuality of the senses is implicitly based upon sexual connotations.
Yes, sexual sizzle certainly sells. And I have no doubt at all whatsoever that desires of all senses come from the same root of craving. Yet, I would wager that a high percentage of chocolates, perfumes and spa treatments are consumed mostly by females and purchased as sexually based sensual gifts by men.
The Buddha taught to regard the aromas of delicious food and rotting sewage without desire or revulsion and those two sense experiences don’t evoke sexuality to me. Perfume: sensual desire, paneer curry, sense desire.
I’m just on this discussion this with friendly food for thought; I don’t want to make a mountain out of a mole hill or get stuck on it. 
If you look at AN1.1-10 it seems there’s no sense that can escape sexual connotations.
There may be a possible connection between many seemingly non-sexual stimuli and experiences and sexuality/sexual desire under specific circumstances/contexts. (Just watch Jûzô Itami’s wonderful film Tampopo for a great example!) But I had several points to make in the original post. The first is that even without overt sexuality in the mix, as Webster’s New International suggests, in English the term “sensual” implies something immoral, suspect, voluptuous, even irreligious. The term is even used in various antisemitic creeds to describe aspects of Jewish physiognomy. But my impression is that there are a very large number of sensory experiences that most people might find "wished for, desired, agreeable, pleasing,” for which the English term “sensual” is simply inappropriate. Of course, as another poster pointed out it is the intention of the person not the object itself that may pose a problem, and anything, including a nice cup of watered-down green tea, may be lusted after unwholesomely depending on a person’s intention. But the very fact that the Buddha singled out sex as the one sensory experience most likely to lead people astray should be considered here.
In any case, I was never suggesting that the term be changed globally. I was only wondering if context might be important for translations. For example, kkāmesu-micchācāra in the third precept is consistently explained by the Buddha throughout the Nikayas as specifically pertaining to adultery and general lusting after other people’s spouses or females too young, unprotected, etc. to be appropriate (he was speaking to male monastics and male lay people if I am not mistaken). So kāmesu here is unequivocally and entirely sexual—not even “sensual,” but overtly sexual. Yet, in another context—say, binging on sushi or Neapolitan Pizza—could also be wrongful “sensual” conduct, but delighting in the “pleasing and agreeable” sight of your children playing in the yard might not at all deserve the term “sensual” at all and might not even deserve the term “wrongful” depending on intention. Given that interpretive judgments are made all the time in translating the texts, I don’t see why judgments of contexts for terms based on the root kāma might also be made.
Anyway…thanks to everyone for their thoughts.
k.
I see AN1. 1010 as saying that the opposite sex arouses sexual desire in all of the senses, but doesn’t say that all sense desires that are ever aroused are of a sexual nature.
Strictly speaking, it could even possibly say that a sexual sense desire is unlike all other sense desires:
“Mendicants, I do not see a single sight [/sound/smell/ taste/touch] that occupies a man’s mind like the sight of a woman. The sight [/sound/smell/ taste/touch] of a woman occupies a man’s mind.”
I am leaning toward agreeing with you, Paul. Also, have you read the commentary from the Manorathapūraṇī on sutta 1.3? (Ven Bodhi’s note 1.18)?
“The bodily odor of a woman is foul (duggandha), but what is intended here is the odor that comes from her body due to ointments, etc.” I am not sure if this is Buddhaghosa’s view, or if it is from an earlier commentator, but this is the sort of thing that increases my wariness of using the commentaries as guides to meaning. Perhaps whoever wrote this one became a monk prior to puberty?
k.
It could be pheromones.
whatever is that you are living here and now, as long as you don’t cling to it and move on without the slightest hesitation, the degree of pleasure* involved will not be an obstacle to progression on the Buddhist path.
As for "a really good cup of sencha or watching my kitten play with a catnip toy as evocative of “lust,” , well , this has nothing to do with lust, but it can become a problem from the moment that you start clinging to it “to feel good”.