Originally posted by: ---Anu---
Yes, he is also supposed to dress up like a king only. But as u said, it is mostly done to point out a difference between both the men. While one is all about Taat-baat and shaan, the other is all about prakriti and simplicity.
Janak, in reality, was known as a RajRishi. The makers took to this get up to highlight his 'Rishi' side.
So this is one of my big beefs with the show. Janak was indeed referred to as a Rajrishi, but not because of his stance on superficial things like clothing or social issues like marriage. He earned the title because of his Vedic knowledge. The kind of knowledge that grants you the same-sightedness to not see gross dualities like rich/poor, simple/grand, liberal/conservative, etc. It is very typical of Devdutt Pattnaik, and therefore expected of this show I guess, to indulge in that kind of oversimplification - everyone exists as a foil to someone else, an approach that works well for literature but kind of drains all the ras out of scripture.
By introducing these pairs of opposites and oversimplifying the characters (particularly Janak vs. Dashrath and Mithila vs. Ayodhya), they are actually reducing Janak's true wisdom into the kind of skin-deep sense of virtue that leads to pride - the kind that makes the maala-jap'ing buas (I forget what that one's name was in IPKKND - the one who was obsessed with Nandkishore 😆- think of her)and grandmas in ordinary soaps look down on other characters for not being as outwardly simple/"spiritual" as they are. True Janak's wisdom was the kind that opens your eyes to that which isn't as it seems - the good-heartedness in the garb of a king (Dashrath), the materialism dressed as a sage (Sunaina's brothers). Or in context of the actual story, the sage in the guise of a demon (e.g. Vibhishan), the demon in the guise of a sage (e.g. Ravan). Had those arrogant ministers from Ayodhya actually existed, the real Janak wouldn't even have noticed, let alone felt bad about their behavior. That's what makes you a Rajrishi, not spouting whatever 21st century social message the CVs want to put forth through you this week (whether or not it was an issue in Treta Yug).
Speaking of oversimplification and the trading of scriptural wisdom for contemporary messages, the whole Gargi and Yagyavalkya debate - yes she's an AWESOME character worth showcasing, and yes having Sita witness and draw inspiration from the gyaan sabhas attributed to Janak in the Upanishads (even if Janak was a title and it wasn't necessarily the same Janak in all those events) was a novel idea. But why the hell would their entire argument rest on her asking him to defend his matrimony/polygamy in a gyaan sabha🤣Granted the actual debate on the nature of the Brahma and the cosmology of the universe is too much for most people to understand, let alone sit through on TV, but it could still be philosophical in nature rather than social. Changing the entire genre of their conversation, and in general making the majority the "lessons learned" from the show social/cultural rather than emotional/spiritual contradicts the universal and timeless quality of the scripture.
Edit: For a sample of Janak's wisdom, here's how Vashisht describes his moment of awakening after meditation, when he actually became a Rajrishi: ""'I know nothing,' he rejoiced, 'but my immaculate divine wisdom, the realization of my Self. I shall neither seek nor turn from any object in this world. I shall remain constant in my divine Self."
Edited by MagadhSundari - 9 years ago
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain
