“Can they not see that this conduct ultimately leads to violence?”, a remark made by a French friend of mine recently. He was really upset by the world cup final incident largely because of the conduct of the players. Speaking yesterday, Zidane said “My act is not forgivable, but they must also punish the true guilty party, and the guilty party is the one who provokes.” In this light, do we condemn the violence or the conduct which causes it?

Zizou was under immense pressure in the final – the whole French team had been formed around him, and the final result arguably rested heavily on his shoulders. It was one of these shoulders which was almost dislocated in an Italian challenge just prior to his headbutting incident as he was relentlessly marked and hounded by the Italian team. However, Materazzi took the hounding to a new level by insulting Zidane’s family on top of nipple tweaking, shirt pulling and all the other crude insults. If you take a man and pile more and more pressure on him, at some point he will break. To me, the measure of the man is how much pressure he can take before that point is reached. In Zidane’s case, I take the measure of his worth as pretty high.

But this also raises the question of when is violence justified? Premasagar previously wrote about spiritual ethics, and in particular Ahimsa, spiritual non-violence which is different to the absolute non-violence preached by Gandhi. Here, I am reminded of a story about Lord Krishna, where he promised to bear 1000 insults from a certain individual. This he did humbly and without reaction… until the 1001st insult. At this, Krishna whipped out his sudarshan cakra and effortlessly chopped the guys head off.

“They were very hard words. You hear them once and you try to move away,” Zidane said. “But then you hear them twice, and then a third time. I am a man and some words are harder to hear than actions. I would rather have taken a blow to the face than hear that.”

I have to say that I think Zidane showed quite a lot of restraint, even in his moment of madness. He could have smashed Materazzi in the face, but chose a soft body blow to knock him down. This in light of the fact that Italy had used all their substitutes and had Materazzi gone off injured, it would have been 10 men against 10. Not that any of this was penetrating the red mist of Zidane’s mind at that moment. His animal instincts had taken over, his humanity crushed by a tide of insult. Which brings us back to the original point – do we condemn the violence or the conduct that leads to it?

I think that is what was disappointing for me with this world cup tournament – the flavour of diving, insulting and downright cheating that left my tongue tasting like an ashtray in a Brazilian pub the morning after their defeat by France. For me sport was always about sportmanship and comeraderie. Take this away and what do you have? War!

War represents a “win at any cost scenario”. The best warmongers are those that can afford the highest costs. The US, for example in it’s middle east campaign. Chelsea in their premier league campaign. Perhaps the best way to tackle the conduct issue in sport is to tackle the cost issue. If we put a minimum and maximum wage cap on both players and managers according to a Prout system, maybe, just maybe, the players will be able to find their way back to playing the game for the reasons that they started playing in the first place – the love of sport. Isn’t that also the reason why we watch it?

In a moment of testosterone-fuelled animality, a billion viewers cried in shocked unison, “what on earth is Zidane doing?” For, the captain of France’s football team, in their chase for the World Cup, had just launched a charging headbutt at Italian player Materazzi, knocking him to the ground. The Frenchman was shown the red card and sent off the pitch.

It was an iconic moment – one that will surely be stamped into the collective memory of this year’s tournament and of Zidane’s largely brilliant career. This was his last game before retirement and the manner in which he chose to exit left the crowd dazed with tension and confusion.

The game seemed to sour from that moment on. It became difficult to root for France… They had lost the moral advantage.

Though we see cultural variations of the details, there exists a universal code of morality and ethics embedded deep within our human psyche. Many people would agree that after their death they’d like to be remembered as a good person. Being ‘good‘ may equate to being honest or kind, or some other universally accepted norm of morality.

The Yoga of Ethics

The ancient system of yoga describes some important guidelines for ethical living. And while many religions and individuals consider morality to be a goal in life, yoga considers it to be just the starting-point, the foundation upon which a person may expand towards self-realisation and spiritual liberation. For, it is not only the effect that a moral or immoral person will have on others that is at stake, it is also the peace of mind of that person.

Meditation – the introspective practice for self-realisation that is prescribed by yoga – is particularly difficult for a mind that is ill at ease. Guilt and shame create mental turbulence that can be difficult to quiet. Hence, yoga gives great importance to the practice of moral living. These are not simple dos and don’ts, not rigid commandments to be followed without thought, but instead a dynamic consideration of each situation that one encounters, to be given an appropriate response.

The ten ethical principles described by yoga (known as yama and niyama) are as follows:

1. Ahimsa – To avoid causing harm by thought, word or action.
   This does not equate to non-violence or non-force, since one may be required to defend oneself or others in extreme situations. And it does not mean non-action, for choosing to remain passive is in itself an action.
2. Satya – Benevolent truthfulness; to use words for the benefit of others.
   This does not necessarily mean absolute truthfulness, because there may be situations where that causes more harm than good.
3. Asteya – To refrain from stealing, or depriving another person of what is rightfully theirs.
4. Aparigraha – To live simply, without accumulating more material goods than one needs.
   This helps to keep the mind unburdened and allows resources to be utilised by all of society.
5. Brahmacarya – To see all people and objects as an expression of the same universal Consciousness.
6. Shoaca – To maintain cleanliness of body, mind and environment.
7. Santosa – To be content with what one has in life, rather than wishing for something else.
8. Tapah – To make sacrifices for the benefit of others.
   This may be done by assisting a person’s physical, mental or spiritual needs. This is given with no thought of reward or return, and may require some personal discomfort.
9. Svadhyaya – To make an effort to understand spiritual subjects and to incorporate their lessons into daily life.
10. Ishvara Pranidhana – To maintain a regular practice that expands one’s mind towards the Infinite.

Can you imagine a World Cup of ethical athletes? There would be no red cards or tantrums for Rooney, no elbows in the face from De Rossi, none of the incessant diving from the Portuguese team, just great football and good sportsmanship.

Can you imagine a society where even 5% of the people are sincere in practising moral living? Are we ready to embrace such an overhaul of our personal conduct?