Hiri and ottappa

Meaning

A pair of terms the Buddha calls lokapālā in AN 2.9 - “guardians of the world.” They protect people from unwholesome deeds. Without them, “the world would be mixed up, like goats with sheep and chickens with pigs.”

Two guardians

The Theravada commentators explain the difference roughly as follows.

Hiri is the inner guardian: revulsion at a bad deed out of self-respect. The recoil at the thought of such an action - “I will not act like that” - arises not from fear of someone outside, nor because one might be caught, but because it is unworthy. The sense is closer to “I do not want to be a person who acts like that.”

Ottappa is the guardian of consequences, oriented outward: a sober wariness of where an action leads - possible harm to others and oneself, the censure of the wise, the kammic result. That is, “I understand where such an action leads.”

Buddhaghosa offers this image: hiri is like disgust at a piece of iron smeared with filth; ottappa is like caution with a piece of iron heated red-hot.

Not to be confused with neurosis

Hiri-ottappa is not self-flagellation, guilt or self-hatred. They are directed only at the unwholesome deed and at the possibility of committing it.

Self-reproach of the sort “I am worthless,” “there is no forgiveness for me,” “I do everything wrong,” “that’s the bad person I am” - often uttered with a certain defiance and inner pride - only strengthens attachment to one’s own self. The guardians work instead as a plain signpost: this is not the way to act.

Kant and Aristotle

Does morality necessarily require shame and dread of wrongdoing?

For Aristotle, shame is useful chiefly as an educational mechanism: the mature virtuous person ideally refrains from what is bad not because he feels ashamed, but because he has formed a character in which a bad deed no longer looks like a worthy choice.

For Kant, the ground of morality comes even closer to the Buddhist ideal of the arahant: one should act rightly neither from fear of consequences nor from a sense of shame, but out of respect for the moral law and duty.

Hiri and ottappa can be understood not as the only possible ground of morality, but as one mode of inner self-regulation: the Buddhist tradition relies on moral feeling and awareness of consequences, Aristotle on virtuous character, Kant on autonomous reason and duty.

In practice

Notice the moment when “the hand is already reaching” to say something sharp, to take what is not yours, to embellish a fact - and feel the subtle inner resistance.

That resistance is usually quiet and easily drowned out, so you have to learn to listen for it. It should not be identified with any fear or discomfort whatsoever. But if you can recognise a tinge of revulsion or the apprehension that “this leads somewhere bad,” it may be worth thinking your action over once more.