[INDOLOGY] Tārā-namaskāra-ekaviṃśati-stotram

[David and Nancy Reigle]

The worst two editions by far are the ones that have been input and have
thus become widely available digitally. This is unfortunate, especially so
since these may unknowingly be regarded as "the" Sanskrit of this text. So
I have prepared a more reliable digital edition. In the absence of any
palm-leaf manuscript, I have had to simply make use of a few more exemplars
of the Tibetan transliteration of the Sanskrit text found in the
*Sarva-tathāgata-mātṛ-tārā-viśva-karma-bhava-tantra* than were available to
Martin Willson by 1986.

The first digital edition, from 2004, available from the Digital Sanskrit
Buddhist Canon site in devanāgarī (
https://www.dsbcproject.org/canon-text/content/631/2758) and in roman (
https://www.dsbcproject.org/canon-text/content/113/806), was input from
Janardan Shastri Pandey's edition in his 1994 *Bauddhastotrasamgraha*.
Pandey is an excellent Sanskrit pandit, and he emended what he could (in
parentheses), but the manuscript he drew from was obviously very corrupt.
In his *Āryatārāsragdharāstotram & Tārānamaskāraikaviṃśatistotram*
published the following year, 1995, he provided a greatly improved edition.
As comparison of his readings show, he had access to Wayman's 1959 edition
that was reprinted in his 1984 book, *Buddhist Insight*, in the interim.

The second digital edition, from 2020, available from GRETIL (
https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/corpustei/transformations/html/sa_namaskAraikaviMzatistotra.htm),
was input from Godefroy de Blonay's 1895 edition, which was based on two
late paper manuscripts. The understandable inadequacy of this pioneering
edition has long been known, yet it is not as bad as the first digital
edition, described above.

On the basis of the very old Tibetan transliteration of the Sanskrit text
found in the *Sarva-tathāgata-mātṛ-tārā-viśva-karma-bhava-tantra*, in
comparison with de Blonay's edition and the TIbetan translation (Toh. 438),
Alex Wayman was able to produce a good edition in 1959 (*Journal of the
Bihar Research Society*, vol. XLV, pp. 36-43). He used only the sDe dge
recension for the Tibetan transcription. Martin Willson used several more
recensions, and produced a very good edition in his 1986 book, *In Praise
of Tārā*. I found only one reading that I regard as an error in his
edition: abhivartinam rather than correct abhivartinām in verse 26d. Based
on additional sources, I chose equally correct alternative readings in
several places.

This stotra was brought to my attention by a friend who has long worked
with the Tibetan sources. After then seeing how faulty the widely used
Sanskrit edition from the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon is, I undertook
this digital edition. I would be happy to have it uploaded to Archive.org.
In the meantime, it can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/115937238/Tara_namaskaraikavimsati_stotram

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, USA

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 2:55 PM David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is there an edition the *Tārā-namaskāra-ekaviṃśati-stotram* that is based
> on one or more old palm-leaf manuscripts? Or is one or more old palm-leaf
> manuscripts that have this stotra now available?
>
> I know of six existing editions:
> 1. Godefroy de Blonay, 1895, based on two late paper manuscripts.
> 2. Alex Wayman, 1959, based on the Sanskrit transcription of this stotra
> found in the third chapter of the Tibetan translation of the
> *Sarva-tathāgata-mātṛ-tārā-viśva-karma-bhava-tantra*, Toh. 726, in
> comparison with de Blonay's pioneering edition.
> 3. Lokesh Chandra, 1975, based on a Sanskrit and Tibetan xylograph from
> Mongolia, apparently in comparison with de Blonay's edition, according to
> my comparison.
> 4. Martin Willson, 1985, based on the Sanskrit transcription in the
> *Sarva-tathāgata-mātṛ-tārā-viśva-karma-bhava-tantra* edited from several
> recensions, in comparison with de Blonay's and Wayman's editions, and a
> quadrilingual blockprint from Mongolia.
> 5. Janardan Shastri Pandey, 1984 (in *Bauddha-stotra-sa**ṃ**graha*),
> apparently based on a late and very corrupt paper manuscript, according to
> my comparison. Source not stated, as far as I could see in his Hindi front
> matter; but I cannot understand Hindi.
> 6. Janardanshastry Pandey, 1985, apparently based on his previous edition
> as much improved by comparison with Wayman's edition, according to my
> comparison. Source not stated, as far as I could see in his Hindi front
> matter; but I cannot understand Hindi.
>
> Of these, Willson's edition is quite good, but there are still places that
> could be, and should be, clarified by comparison with one or more old
> palm-leaf manuscripts.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Reigle
> Colorado, U.S.A.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20240307/af137cfb/attachment.htm>