the world of our emotions

excerpt from beyond religion by the dalai lama

interestingly, in the classical buddhist science of mind in which i am trained, there is no concept of emotion as a single category that precisely corresponds to the understanding of emotion in contemporary western psychology. indeed, there is no word in either sanskrit or classical tibetan that exactly translates the word "emotion." instead, all mental states are understood to include both cognitive and feeling dimensions to some degree, and to contain five omnipresent mental factors, of which "feeling" is one. the other four are discrimination, volition, attention, and contact. so even a cognitive mental process as simple as counting from one to ten is regarded as having some kind of "feeling" or "feeling tone," which naturally is related to context.

there are also various ways of categorizing our emotional states. for example, in contemporary psychology the main distinction is often drawn between emotional states which, on the one hand, are pleasurable or joyful and are described as positive, and those which, on the other hand, are unpleasant or painful and are described as negative.

in classical buddhist psychology, however, the distinction is rather different. instead, the primary distinction is not between those states which are pleasurable and those that are painful, but between those that are beneficial and those that are harmful. "afflictive" mental states, known as nyonmong in tibetan or klesha in sanskrit, are those which undermine our long-term well-being, while "non-afflictive" mental states are those which have no such destructive impact.

given these different ways of categorizing emotional experience, it is important for readers not to confuse those emotions which are afflictive - that is to say, harmful to our long-term well-being - with those which simply don't feel good. of course, sometimes these overlap. feelings of hatred, for example, are both destructive and unpleasant to experience, but there can also be experiences which may not be pleasant but can nevertheless be beneficial, and in the same way there can be feelings that are pleasant which nevertheless can be destructive. for instance, feelings of sadness, grief, and remorse are certainly not pleasurable, but they need not in themselves be afflictive. when faced, say, with the death of a loved one, feelings of grief and sorrow may actually be quite constructive in helping us come to terms with our loss and move on with our lives. in the same way, emotions which may initially seem pleasurable can nevertheless be destructive at a deeper level by undermining our mental peace and stability. one example might be lust, or excessive longing for a particular object. such longing may in some sense seem pleasurable. but eventually obsessive craving will erode our capacity for genuine contentment and undermine our mental equilibrium, and should therefore be considered destructive.

in the context of secular ethics, this distinction between those mental states which undermine well-being - our own and that of others - and those which promote survival and well-being can be very useful, since it is directly relevant to our pursuit of happiness and an ethically sound way of life. given that people come from many different backgrounds and cultures, which states are to be considered destructive and which are to be considered beneficial may vary in particular cases. generally speaking, we can define destructive emotions as those states which undermine our well-being by creating inner turmoil, thereby undermining self-control and depriving us of mental freedom. within this, it is also possible to distinguish between two sub-categories: those emotional states that are destructive in themselves, such as greed, hatred, or malice; and those states, such as attachment, anger, or fear, which only become destructive when their intensity is disproportionate to the situation in which they arise.

from a biological perspective, all our basic emotions evidently have evolutionary purposes. for example, attachment helps bring us together and enables us to create bonds, anger helps us repel forces that are detrimental to our survival and well-being, fear enables us to respond to a threat with vigilance, and envy prompts us to compete with others so that we do not overlook our own needs. scientists have demonstrated that these basic emotions have clear biological dimensions. when we face an immediate danger, for example, and fear arises, extra blood rushes to our legs, and with increased adrenaline and our hearts beating faster, the emotion of fear literally prepares us to flee. in contrast, when anger arises, more blood goes to our arms, preparing us to confront the threat. so the important point to bear in mind is that these feelings are not destructive in themselves; they become destructive only when their intensity is out of proportion to the situation, or when they arise in situations that do not call for them.

as for attachment, which after all is the feeling that holds families and communities together, we do not usually think of it as destructive. however, when this basic emotion becomes excessive and wants to control its object, it does become destructive. this is true also of desire. in itself, desire is not destructive. after all, without desire, the human race would cease to exist altogether! in fact, desire is the emotion that drives many of our day-to-day activities -- from getting up in the morning to eating, working, and pursuing our immediate and long-term goals in life.

similarly, even anger is not always destructive. for example, in some situations strong compassion may give rise to an equally strong sense of outrage -- that is, anger -- about an injustice. again, feeling angry can, in the short term, make our minds more focused and give us an extra burst of energy and determination. in these ways, anger can, in certain situations, make us more effective in getting things done and in obtaining what we seek. however, when anger extends beyond this practical function, most of the energy it brings us is not helpful at all. since all of us have probably, at one time or another, been on the receiving end of other people's anger, we all have experience of its unpleasant consequences.

however, while anger may sometimes have a constructive element, hatred never does. hatred is always destructive.

like anger, fear is not destructive in every situation. fear makes us more attentive and guards us against danger. it is also a powerful motivating factor, forcing us to be cautious and to take care of our well-being. but when fear is obsessive, it can paralyze us and become a very destructive mental condition. furthermore, excessive fear gives rise to a persistent state of anxiety, which is harmful to our health. i therefore often distinguish between reasonable fear and unreasonable fear. the first kind is not only legitimate but actually necessary to our survival. if a mad dog comes running at us, we need to respond to this danger with fear. this is obvious. in contrast, unreasonable fear occurs when the source of threat is largely our own mental projection. we need to keep this kind of fear in check, for it is totally useless and often destructive. what we need to counter unreasonable fear is a better understanding of the situation at hand.

this dual aspect of emotions -- that all of them have destructive and nondestructive sides -- can also be seen in other mental states such as doubt, shame, grief, competitiveness, and even our sense of ego itself. doubt is the mental factor that enables us to inquire and seek out understanding. indeed, i always say that a dose of skepticism is quite healthy in that it opens our minds to questioning and new knowledge. however, when doubt becomes pathological it can paralyze us and prevent us from taking any decisive action. the same is true of shame. at the basic level, shame is an important social emotion which has a constructive function; nevertheless, when shame becomes extreme, it can lead to low self-regard and negative self-judgment, which are clearly not constructive. with respect to grief or sorrow, in some situations this emotion is constructive and has a positive effect. but when it becomes something like a habit of mind, divorced from any realistic cause, it may be destructive, as when it manifests as self-absorbed grief or as depression.

competitiveness, too, can be constructive, as when our competitive urge motivates us to strive to achieve something better or higher. however, when competitiveness acquires an aspect of wanting to put others down or hold them back so we can out-achieve them, it then becomes destructive.

in egoism, too, we can distinguish between two kinds. a strong sense of self can be constructive, the basis for generating self-confidence -- the state of mind that allows us to feel, "yes, i can do this." but another form of egoism is evident when, in pursuing our own self-interest, we become totally oblivious to others' welfare and even willing to exploit others to benefit ourselves. this type of egoism is clearly destructive.

so, when we are dealing with matters as subtle a human mental processes, it is important not to be too dogmatic. it is difficult or impossible to determine whether or not a given mental state is destructive without knowing its context. often we can make this determination only by taking into account the underlying motivation, the specific object of the emotion, the consequences of the emotion, and so on. in the area of the human mind, therefore, we should always maintain an attitude of open-mindedness, pragmatism, and flexibility.

(((())))

one feature that characterizes all destructive emotions is a tendency to distort our perception of reality. they cause us to narrow our perspective so that we fail to see a given situation in its wider context. for example, when we are feeling an extreme form of attachment -- such as intense desire, lust, or greed -- often we are projecting a level of attractiveness onto the object of our desire which far exceeds what is really there. we become blind even to quite obvious shortcomings and in our obsessive clinging we create a kind of insecurity in ourselves, a feeling that we need to obtain the object of our desire and are incomplete without it. excessive attachment tends also to involve a desire to control, which can be very suffocating when the object of that desire happens to be another person. because of this, extreme attachment is by nature quite unstable. one moment we may feel great affection for something or someone, but when, for example, our desire for control is thwarted, this feeling can easily turn to resentment or hatred.

a similar loss of perspective characterizes extreme of intense emotions of aversion, such as anger, hatred, contempt, or resentment. when we are gripped by intense anger, for example, the object of our rage will always appear one hundred percent negative, even though in moments of calm we may recognize that the same person or thing has many admirable qualities. the overly strong emotion causes us to lose our capacity for discernment. we cannot see the long- and short-term consequences of our actions, and as a result we are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. we literally, for a moment, become almost mad, incapable of acting in our own best interest. and then, after the event, when the emotion cools, how often we regret what we have done or said in anger!

. . .

the point about all these afflictive mental states is that, in one way or another, they obscure our vision by clouding our capacity for discernment. they make us incapable of rational judgment, and thus we might say they steal our minds.

(((())))

one helpful approach to understanding our destructive emotions is to view them as related families distinguished by the kind of underlying state of mind they involve. for example, as i have said, the emotions of the anger family, such as hatred, enmity, and malice, are characterized by an exaggerated repulsion, while those of the attachment family, such as greed, lust, and craving, are characterized by an equally exaggerated sense of attraction. the other main families of afflictive emotions -- envy, pride, and doubt -- involve mixtures of excessive attraction on the one hand (such as the excessive attachment to a deluded self-image in the case of pride) and excessive repulsion on the other (such as the excessive sense of enmity toward a rival in the case of envy). as we have already seen, in addition to this element of excessive revulsion or attraction or unhealthy mixtures of the two, all afflictive emotions are further characterized by an unrealistic or deluded perspective.

envy is a somewhat complex family of afflictions, since its root lies in attachment and attraction yet it also has a strong element of anger, hostility, and repulsion. recent scientific research on happiness has found that one of the primary sources of discontent in today's world, especially in the more affluent societies, is our human tendency to compare ourselves to those around us. fundamentally this comes down to the problem of envy.

the afflictive family of pride or conceit, which includes destructive attitudes such as arrogance, prejudice, and even obsessive or unrealistic embarrassment, also involves a mixture of attraction and repulsion: attraction, for example, to an unrealistic or deluded self-image, and repulsion or disdain toward anyone or anything that threatens that cherished self-image. this attachment to an inflated self-image, whether based on social status, accomplishment, or the circumstances of our birth, may prompt us to actions that are disrespectful of others, and such actions are destructive both to the welfare of others and to ourselves.

finally, there is the family of afflictive doubt, which encompasses such destructive emotions as anxiety and obsessive guilt. these are grounded in habitual fear and in unrealistic self-loathing, which are very damaging to our ability to be compassionate. emotions of the afflictive doubt family can therefore be highly detrimental to our own sense of well-being.

these then are the destructive emotions which i consider the main obstacles to human well-being -- not only our own individual well-being, but also that of those around us, and ultimately that of the very world we share. these emotions fundamentally undermine our capacity to put positive ethical values, such as compassion, into practice. only when we fully recognize the negative repercussions of such destructive emotions and expose their futility and impracticality as responses will we be able to go about tackling them effectively.

our inner development with regard to regulating our destructive emotions calls for a two-pronged approach. one the one hand, we must seek to reduce the impact of the destructive potentials that are inherent within us; on the other, we must seek to enhance the positive qualities that also naturally exist within us. this two-pronged approach to mental training is what i consider to be the heart of genuine spiritual practice.

(((())))

in order to go about dealing with these destructive emotions, it is first of all necessary to adopt a general attitude or stance toward them: a stance of opposition.

such a stance involves recognizing that the law of opposition -- whereby positives cancel out or neutralize negatives -- applies not just to the physical world but also to our inner or mental world. in the great wisdom traditions we find clear lessons both on the mental states that are to be tackled and on the need to cultivate and deploy their antidotes. if no opposing forces exist for our destructive emotions, then there is nothing we can do about them. however, if opposite, positive forces do exist, then they can become powerful antidotes. for example, the main antidote for anger is forbearance, for greed is contentment, for fear is courage, and for doubt is understanding.