The 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan significantly promoted football in the host countries. However, it remains unclear how the event has changed mass football participation. This study applies points of attachment —a well-developed concept in the field of sport management—to the 2002 FIFA World Cup and aims to examine which specific POA promoted football participation frequency immediately after the event and the present frequency of football participation in the host countries. An online questionnaire survey was conducted in South Korea and (...) Japan. The samples included adults aged > 19 as of the hosting date of the 2002 World Cup. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test all the datasets by employing four POAs as independent variables. Multiple control variables and two dependent variables were included in the model. Correspondingly, those who had a higher attachment to each point during the event showed a higher frequency of football participation immediately after the event. In contrast, only two POAs led to a higher frequency of present football participation. These findings provide the first empirical evidence highlighting the influence of the 2002 FIFA World Cup on mass football participation depending on the POA. (shrink)

As Funayama has shown, Dharmakīrti’s successors had an animated discussion on the nature and function of the initial statement of scientific treatises in terms of its effectiveness and requisites. Arcaṭa in his comments on the initial statement of the Hetubindu considers that the initial statement, which contains the purpose of the treatise, is useless in prompting people to undertake the activity of reading the treatise because judicious people are supposed to undertake action only due to certainty which never arises from (...) something that is not a pramāṇa. For Arcaṭa, the initial statement is set forth only to dispel the objection of an opponent who criticizes the treatise for not having a purpose. Kamalaśīla criticizes Arcaṭa on this point; for him the initial statement is effective to prompt people to undertake the reading of the treatise because people act also on the basis of doubt, which arises from the initial statement that is not a pramāṇa but an abhyupāya for action. This paper attempts to consider how such doubt can cause reading by examining the debate in the Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā and related texts. As Kamalaśīla presupposes, when people act due to doubt, they may attain the desired purpose by chance but cannot escape the risks of not attaining an desired purpose and also of attaining an undesired purpose. Taking these risks into consideration, it is reasonable for Granoff to take up Kamalaśīla’s position as an example of the maxim of kākatālīya in the introduction of her paper in the present volume. However, the probability for the readers of the Tattvasaṅgraha to achieve easy comprehension of tattva as a result of reading a full treatise, which they undertake due to doubt out of the initial statement, is higher than that for a crow being suddenly killed by a falling palm-fruit. According to Kamalaśīla, the risk of not attaining the desired purpose does not prevent people from reading because such fear equally occurs in activities based on certainty. Furthermore, there is no risk of attaining an undesired purpose from the treatise because authors are supposed to undertake action only for the sake of others. Therefore, doubt which arises from an abhyupāya can make people undertake action. (shrink)

This paper aims at examining the arguments between Śubhagupta (c.720–780) and Śāntarakṣita (c.725–788) over the Buddha’s cognition of other minds and shows how the question of the Buddha’s cognition of other mindsis incorporated into the proof of vijñaptimātratā or “consciousness-only” by Śāntarakṣita. According to Śāntarakṣita, Śubhagupta assumes that the Buddha’s cognition, which is characterized as “the cognition [of the Blessed One] which follows the path of cognition” (aupalambhikadarśana), grasps other minds when the Buddha’s cognition is similar (sārūpya) to other minds. (...) For Śāntarakṣita, the Buddha’s cognition cannot be aupalambhika. If the Buddha’s cognition were similar to the other minds, it would follow that the Buddha, whose cognition erroneously grasps other minds as something distinct from it, has not yet removed the hindrance constituted by objects of knowledge (jñeyāvaraṇa). But if it is accepted that the Buddha’s cognition is beyond the grasped-grasper duality, can the Buddha, who does not know other minds, be called sarvajña “omniscient”? According to Śāntarakṣita, even though the Buddha has no seeing (adarśana), the Buddha causes all sentient beings to gain benefits by virtue of seeing other minds and hence deserves to be called sarvajña. What underlies this argument is that the Buddha knows other minds without making a distinction between his own mind and other minds, which is possible only on the basis of self-cognition (ātmasaṃvedana). (shrink)