कृषि-पाराशर (महर्षि पराशर - प्राचीन भारतीय कृषि, मृदा-परीक्षण, वर्षा-पूर्वानुमान व बीज-संस्कार)

vi KṚṢI-PARĀŚARA
sed Smṛti texts and to the preparation of digests and commentaries in
the various branches of learning by reconciling divergent views and by
giving the author's own conclusions. Hence, it will not, perhaps, be
absolutely unreasonable to suggest a period earlier than the eighth
century when the work might have come into being, i.e. in the period
during which the original Dharma-śāstras were yet being composed.
The reference to Gārgya in the work does not help us materially in
fixing its date, because the date of Gārgya himself is as yet uncertain.
A good deal of difficulty arises from the name 'Parāśara.' If he
be the same person as mentioned by Yājñavalkya in the list of tradi-
tional authors of Dharmaśāstra, the work then must be earlier than
Yājñavalkya, and should be placed between 100 and 600 A. D. The
work contains a citation of Parāśara as an authority—a fact which
tends to prove the author to have been different from the well-known
author of the Dharmaśāstra. But, the practice of the author referring
to himself in the third person is not uncommon in Sanskrit literature.³
Whoever this Parāśara may be, and whatever his date, the name is
certainly very old.
Here a question naturally arises as to whether the author of the
Kṛṣi-parāśara can be the same as the author of the well-known
Parāśara-smṛti which is regarded as the highest authority in the Kali
Age. While there are no external evidences on the matter, the internal
evidences fail to prove anything conclusively. If both the Parāśaras are
regarded as identical, it becomes difficult to account for the com-
plete absence of verses from the Kṛṣi-parāśara or of any reference to it
in the portion of the Parāśara-smṛti dealing with agriculture. It is
idle to argue that the Smṛti only incidentally refers to agriculture, and
that the lack of reference to the Kṛṣi-parāśara is merely accidental;
because, the Smṛti devotes no less than about a dozen verses to this
particular topic. On the other hand, it also seems a bit strange that
the author of the Kṛṣi-parāśara does not refer to the chapters on agri-
culture contained in his own Smṛti work. Moreover, while the Smṛti
dwells at length on the question of castes in relation to agriculture,
3 Cf. prāyeṇa ācāryāṇāṁ iyam śailī yat svābhiprāyamapi paropadeśamiva
varṇayanti—Kullūka under Manu I. 4 (N. S. P. ed.)