Some facts need to be corrected in this book, as, in the introduction, the authors write:
"The SAT Daizokyo Text operated by Tokyo University is not as active [as CBETA] in textual verification or improvement of of other research tools. Instead SAT is working on translation of the Buddhist canon into English."
I am somewhat surprised to see such unsupportable statements in an academic work such as this.
(1) I wonder what the authors' basis is for the assertion that SAT is not as active in textual verification? Certainly they have not actually gone to Tokyo and discussed with the SAT staff regarding their long-term, strenuous efforts at textual verification. So based on what kind of comparative data has this assertion been made?
(2) "SAT is not active in improvement of other research tools"? Seeing this makes me wonder if the authors have ever tried to use the SAT database, with its array of attached tools on the web site. It includes a text parser, which finds words in the DDB, gives definitions, and provides links into the DDB. It includes an image-viewing apparatus; SAT is in the process of submitting more than 6,000 characters to Unicode for submission, so that Taisho readers (whether through SAT, CBETA, or whatever) will be able to read the full texts without GIF images, or algebraic representation; SAT run interoperatively with the INBUDS article database--plus a number of other integrated tools.
(3) SAT has never had a mission to carry out an English translation of the Buddhist Canon. Apparently the authors have SAT confused with the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, which is linked into SAT via one of the many "research tools" included in our system.
I appreciate Dr. Muller's remarks. However, I am afraid readers of Dr. Muller's remarks will attribute the referenced quotation directly to the editors of the volume. Muller does not reference the introduction but my chapter, “9. Taisho Canon: Devotion, Scholarship, and Nationalism in the Creation of the Modern Buddhist Canon in Japan” - as one can surmise from the title this piece argues that religious, academic, and political variables influenced the publication of the Taisho. At the end of chapter, I speculate that these variables may distinguish e-text projects of the canon in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. The brief reference to the SAT misrepresented their connection to the BDK and their significant contribution to Buddhist canon research and digital humanities, which I sincerely regret and take full accountability. I would hope that this would not dissuade anyone from taking a closer look at this volume, the shortcomings of my chapter not withstanding, this is a great contribution to research and analysis on the Buddhist canon and I would hope that this misrepresentation and Dr. Muller's remarks would not be associated to the research and writing by other authors or editors of the volume.