It might also be worthwhile to examine the treatment of emotions in other discursive traditions. I’ve found Daniel Gross’s work, and in particular The Secret History of Emotions (University of Chicago, 2006), useful in this regard. Rather than approaching emotions as a perennialist might, Gross traces the history of emotions in the West considered as psychosocial phenomena rather than as biologically given and universally distributed. It is also important, I believe, not to fixate on lexicon and terms but instead examine the conditions under which some terms rather than others are employed and by whom. In my own primary field (medical anthropology), this argument is made by Charles Briggs here:

In Gross' work, he examines anger, as only certain elites such as a king or nobleman are permitted to feel and/or express anger. This is revelant when examining, for instance, Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra and the dangers/management of "wrath". In 8.3, there is an extended discussion of "wrath" (kopa) wherein Olivelle's translation of kopa as "wrathful revolt," captures a sense of both anger and rebellion contained in the word, which makes the emotion highly charged politically and points to why such a feeling is inappropriate for a sovereign.

Hope this is helpful,

Mauricio