growth does not depend on the person who planted the seed

चीयते बालिशस्यापि सत्क्षेत्रप्रतिता कृषिः ।

न शालेः स्तंबकरिता वप्तुर्गुणमपेक्षते ॥

- मुद्रराक्षस

cīyate bāliśasyāpi satkṣetrapratitā kṛṣiḥ ।

na śāleḥ staṃbakaritā vapturguṇamapekṣate ॥

- mudrarākṣasa

If one sows a very potent seed in fertile land, the seed will germinate, grow and give yield. The growth does not depend on the person who planted the seed. The quality of the seed or the result of cultivation does not in any way depend on the person who collected and planted the seed. If the seed is potent and the land is fertile, the plant will germinate, grow and give yield even if the one who sowed is a silly and worthless person.

Lore of Rings

An elaborate discussion on rings is in progress among the veterans ..

All I could think up of rings was that

Just two instances of the importance of Ring as a connectives in matrimony struck my mind

First.. In Ramayanam..Sundarakaandam.. A new lease of life is given to Sita when Hanumanji delivers the Signet Ring of Rama to Sita in captivity in Ravanas Lanka..

Second.. In Abhijnaana Shaakuntalam of Kalidasa..The only evidence for the marriage of Shakuntala with Dushyanta is a ring given by the King to her..This ring is lost by her and she has to lose her conjugal rights and bear the stigma of illicity pregnancy, and the matter is set right enabling the union of the King and the hermit girl only when the lost ring is regained..

It is said that some proud warriors and kings kept diamond rings mainly because they could swallow the diamond piece and die easily if they are defeated and captured or land up in similar circumstances..

There is said to be another tradition in India till a few centuries ago that nubile damsels wore rings which are surrendered to the man who possess them bodily for the first time..

And in the celebrated play Mudraaraakshasam of Vishaakhadatta,

Chanakya causes the signet ring of the Prime Minister of Nandas,, Rakshasa, and uses the marks on it to forge documents which ultimately forced Minister Rakshasa to capitulate before Chandragupta Maurya and accept the Prime Ministership under the new monarch..

The play is a classic .

And of course there is the story of Angulimal the ogre.

These are the lore of the rings I have heard of..

indeed very rare stuff

while studying the various aphorisms of Vishnugupta, the Kautilya or Chanakya, I came across a definition as to how the great scholar came to be known as Kautilya..

कुटो घटः तं धान्यपूर्णं लान्ति संगृह्णन्ति इति कुटलाः कुंभीधान्याः त्यागपराः ब्राह्मणश्रेष्ठाः। तेषां गोत्रापत्यो कौटिल्यो विष्णुगुप्तो नाम।

kuṭo ghaṭaḥ taṁ dhānyapūrṇaṁ lānti saṁgṛhṇanti iti kuṭalāḥ kuṁbhīdhānyāḥ tyāgaparāḥ brāhmaṇaśreṣṭhāḥ| teṣāṁ gotrāpatyo kauṭilyo viṣṇugupto nāma|

Kuta means a mid-sized earthen pot.. kutala is one who is having as his earthly possession only one such pot filled with cereals (impllying that he possessed or kept for himself nothing else).. Such a man of self denial is a kutala brahmin.. and Chanakya is Kautilya because he is born in the family of a brahmin following such tradition..

Chanakya was the scholar-statesman who had the vision to unite most of Bharat under Chandragupta Maurya, after and in spite of internal strife and the havoc wrought by the Greek invasion under the leadership of Alexander.. At that period, Nandas or Mauryas or for that matter any king held only the titular authority and the real moving forces were Kautilya and may be next to him the minister of the Nandas, Rakshasa.. But these two persons, never claimed anything by way of personal benefit.. 

Chanakya went one step ahead.. He knew that Rakshasa was a great statesman and it was Rakshasa who held together the empire of Nandas till Chandragupta took over . In spite of the fact that Rakshasa was a sworn enemy of Chanakya and Chandraguptha the Maurya, Chanakya ensured that Rakshasa continued to function as prime minister even under Chandragupta Maurya.. There Chanakya put the welfare of the State ahead of personal rancour..

And this fact also speaks volumes about the blemish-less character and patriotism of Rakshasa.. even when he was being forced to serve an enemy, the professional ethics of Rakshasa, would ensure that he discharged his duties according to Dharma..And Chanakya had such a confidence in his sworn enemy.

An all powerful king-maker who would prefer to have only one pot of cereals as his whole earthly possession, and a civil servant, who would place the professional honour before anything else.. Chanakya and Rakshasa.. this is what legends were made of.. this is what politics was in India.. 

The celebrated play Mudra Rakshasam of Visakhadatta is a glorious study on these two titans.