Emotions are a central concept in Western psychology and its language for introspection. The definition of “emotion” is nebulous, incorporating and alluding to a range of phenomenon, and yet it is an extremely powerful category for defining and referring to the human experience.<\/p>\n
Buddhism has a deeply and long developed model for describing, identifying, and deconstructing mental phenomenon, and yet rarely does the word “emotions” appear in its canonical texts (i.e. in translation). The closest synonym which appears is “feeling” (vedana<\/em><\/span> in Pali), although there are many references to states classifiable as emotions. Vedana, however, is not the same as emotions, and is generally considered as manifesting itself in three experiences – appearance as pleasant, appearance as unpleasant, and appearance as neither pleasant nor unpleasant.<\/p>\n First, the meaning of vedana will be explored and compared with the concept of “emotion”.<\/p>\n Then the implications of this difference for a mental model, and then the value of this difference, will be explored.<\/p>\n Although vedana is\u00a0translated as “feeling” – thus making sense of the categories of pleasantness – the etymology of the word relates it more closely to the English “experience”.<\/p>\n To try and understand the relationship between vedana and emotions, it is fruitful to try and map one onto the other. Let’s try and describe an emotion using Buddhist phenomenology and dialect, using anger and anxiety as case studies.\u00a0I choose these two because they appear in the Pali canon, and because of their fundamental differences according to the canon.<\/p>\n “Anger” is similar to the Buddhist byapada<\/span> (ill-will) and dosa<\/span> (aversion).<\/p>\n “Anxiety” is similar to the Buddhist\u00a0uddhacca-kukkucca<\/span> (restlessness-worry).<\/p>\n Just to contextualize these briefly: dosa is one of the three unwholesome roots (mula<\/span>) that devolve from ignorance (avijja<\/span>) and which are responsible as conditions for the perpetuation of suffering (dukkha<\/span>). Byapada\u00a0and uddhacca-kukkucca are two of the five hindrances (niravana<\/span>), which spark the considerations for suffering. The hindrances are species\u00a0of citta<\/span> (mental objects) and are considered to be amenable to awareness by various processes of attendance (sati<\/span>).<\/p>\n A more detailed approach could also dissect emotions by reference to the five khandas (aggregates) which compose the living entity by a process of co-conditioning.<\/small><\/p>\n The best translation for “anger” in Pali is\u00a0patigha<\/span>.\u00a0It refers to anger in a way that has less tangential connotations (than byapada or dosa), although all three terms are connected.\u00a0The texts describe\u00a0patigha (regarding right view of action) as both a course of kamma<\/span> (karma) and a root of kamma (as dosa). By comparison worry is a course of kamma but not a root. To avoid worry one can avoid bad kamma (which precipitates further bad kamma), but to avoid anger one may need to both avoid bad kamma and weaken the grip of ignorance.<\/p>\n The dosa root precipitates\u00a0patigha by inducing byapada. Byapada inspires the mind to an angry experience. It may cause sensations (sanna<\/span>) of anger, which may appear as physical (i.e. the physical sensation of anger, e.g. in the chest), or mental (e.g. as thoughts which inspire further anger). These may be conditioned to induce an upleasant vedana\u00a0(i.e. not liking the anger) and a pleasant vedana (e.g. the attraction to violence and domination). \u00a0These and others may reinforce and inspire each other, so that the person mistakenly believes “I am angry”, when in fact there is no “I” and no “anger”, only an aggregation of experiences and delusions (moha<\/span>).<\/p>\n In English I may say that I am angry; I know that I am angry because I feel anger in my chest, because I am thinking aggressive thoughts, and because I have intentions to harm or dominate others.\u00a0I may investigate the cause of my anger, saying that I am angry because I did not get what I wanted, because someone hurt me, and because I have an angry character.<\/p>\n In pali, I may say that I am experiencing anger\u00a0(nb. the premise of egolessness [anatta<\/span>] in Buddhism). The anger is caused by a sensory condition (like a painful encounter, or the bubbling of thought), which is grasped by the mindless mind (unwise consideration ayoniso manasikara<\/span>), which combined by a preexisting kamma and dosa, instigate a further chain of experiences. This chain is byapada which creates sensations (sanna, including thoughts) and vedana, whose effects loop back on themselves through further unwise consideration, as when there is a negative feeling towards a thought through which dosa is enabled to further express itself.<\/p>\n Udhacca-kukkucca are courses of kamma, meaning that they are the result of previous actions (including mental actions).\u00a0Udhacca-kukkucca are described by the simile of a slave at a festival, who cannot enjoy the celebrations and sights because he is always concerned with his imminent and imposing obligations. This simile highlights the position of udhacca-kukkucca as something to which react. An obligation (or an impression of an obligation) enters the mind, is considered unwisely, and thereby interpreted according to the roots of ignorance. This includes an aversion (per dosa) to the obligation, and mistaken conclusions (per moha) regarding its permanence and transcendental significance. These create the mind object of udhacca-kukkucca, which like anger, creates sensations and feelings which loop back on each other, until the mind is filled with ignorance, believing, “I am anxious” (instead of there is udhacca-kukkucca which is acting as a cause and which is<\/em> caused<\/em>).<\/p>\n In English I would say that I am anxious; I know I am anxious because I feel anxiety in my chest, because I am thinking thoughts of worry, and because I have intentions to fulfil or take on obligations. I may investigate the cause of my anxiety, saying that I am angry because I have (many) obligations or intentions which are overwhelming me, and because of my anxious character.<\/p>\n An easy conclusion says that the breakdown of emotions within a language is idiosyncratic. This suggests a sense of the emotional construct – meaning, the defining terms and reference points for communicating and identifying emotions – is arbitrary. Not completely arbitrary, since it is hard to believe that anyone would say that the concept of “emotions” overlaps with the concept of “number”. But on the other hand,\u00a0connotations<\/em> can appear arbitrary between languages and milieu, for example, the connotation of “colour” for emotions for those that discuss auras (and perhaps the Pythagoreans would say the same about emotions and numbers).<\/p>\n Thus we have a few key differences: (1) delimitation of monadic concepts, and (2) range and relation of connotations.<\/p>\nMapping vedana and emotion<\/h3>\n
Anger<\/h4>\n
Anxiety<\/h4>\n
Emotions, linguistic relativity, and the introspective journey<\/h3>\n