Dear David, you did a great job. It is absolutely necessary to bring out a good edition. The next step is the recitation of Stotras. While it is less important for academics, there are several people who love to recite the Stotras. I have however observed many faults in the recitation. 

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024, 23:14 David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY, <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

An error in my "more reliable" digital edition was discovered by me last night. Apologies to all who already downloaded it. The corrected version was uploaded to Academia.edu last night, after I found the error. It is in verse 11, pāda b: the incorrect "patala" instead of the correct "paṭala". Sorry!

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 5:09 PM David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle@gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology