I find it interesting to look at the relationship between the basic emotions and Maslow's need theory. So for instance, if you think something is about to happen that runs strongly contrary to one of your vital needs, I suppose you will feel fear. If you see one of your basic needs being well-met, pleasure. If you think someone is acting contrary to one of you needs, you will tend to feel anger. Disgust seems to be when you think something is happening contrary to your need to avoid disease and poisons. In terms of Ekman's concepts, I am trying to explain the various triggers.
Is calm a state of mind where you sit back and look at what is happening, good or bad? Maybe someone who knows something about Buddhism could explain what the Dali Lama means when he uses this term.
To understand where the Dalai Lama is coming from, you should understand the states of transition that Buddhists identify as the relationship between the physical world and consciousness. These are sometimes called the five aggregates. I can give you my perspective on that concept from what I know, but it's going to be different from his of course.
The first aggregate is the physical form. This is translated into a good or bad feeling. Next comes a perception of whether or not the thing is familiar. This then becomes a mental formation of emotions and ideas triggered by the thing. Lastly, integrates into consciousness.
So in the Buddhist understanding, which is based on people's experiences in meditation, a positive or negative judgment comes before something is even recognized, so there's a separation between judgment and emotional reaction.
Calmly sitting back and looking at what is happening is meant to bring awareness past the final point of consciousness when judgments and emotions have already been formed, closer to the source. A little bit like taking a tour of the farm and soup factory to see where your food came from before it got processed and put in a can.
So if you're especially good at it, you should be able to see past that judgment and filtering process that your mind does with information, not ignoring it but just being aware of the filters that exist.
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but what I'm getting at is that most Buddhists are interested in breaking down this process that leads from external stimulation to a conscious perception and tend to view emotions and judgments as steps in processing. He's comparing his understanding gained through a lot of internal analysis of these steps in processing to the scientific understanding of how it happens.
It isn't in my opinion any of enjoyment, fear, anger, disgust ... maybe sadness. But looking under sadness I see nothing suggestive to me of compassion.
From what I know of this research, these emotions are supposed to be universal and independent of language and culture.
"For more than 40 years, Paul Ekman has supported the view that emotions are discrete, measurable, and physiologically distinct. Ekman's most influential work revolved around the finding that certain emotions appeared to be universally recognized, even in cultures that were preliterate and could not have learned associations for facial expressions through media."[1]
Is calm a state of mind where you sit back and look at what is happening, good or bad? Maybe someone who knows something about Buddhism could explain what the Dali Lama means when he uses this term.