a difficult word

[Jonathan Silk]

In the Yazastilaka (Zivadatta 1903: ii.95-96) we find the passage:

zruuyate hi: vangiima.n.dale n.rpatido.saad bhuudeve.sv
aasavopayoga.h paarasiike.su ca svasavitriisamyoga.h simhale.su ca
vizvaamitras.r.s.tiprayoga iti.

It is said that in Bengal Brahmins consume alcoholic spirits thanks
to the sinfulness of the king, and the Persians have sexual relations
with their own mothers, and the Ceylonese mix castes.


The commentary explains the last term as var.nasamkara, but while I
am certainly willing to accept this, I do not understand why it
should be so. Why does vizvaamitras.r.s.tiprayoga mean var.nasamkara?

(Incidentally, the usually very detailed commentary omits any remarks
at all about svasavitriisamyoga.h).

thanks in advance, JAS

(PS: I am aware that the entire passage is offered in criticism of
the bad moral influence of kings, and that my translation might
suggest that the criticism extends only to Bengal--but is there some
reason why the word n.rpatido.saad should not come at the beginning
of the citation, where it might more clearly apply to all three
items?)
--
Jonathan Silk
Department of Asian Languages & Cultures
Center for Buddhist Studies
UCLA
290 Royce Hall
Box 951540
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540
phone: (310)206-8235
fax:  (310)825-8808
silk at humnet.ucla.edu