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@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-saṃgraha), 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.