Akbar - MUZ Kids :: Part-6 : JA is NOT Fiction - Page 19

Originally posted by: Arieltabi

No dear HK was 2 months older than him. But yes women could get pregnant after 40. I have heard stories in old days sometimes mother and daughter used to get pregnant at the same time.

Originally posted by: Kaana

</div>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">Adia, thanks for your kind
response. Your post has been a treat to
read, something that will stay in my heart.
</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">@bold: Just beautiful. And if you
had seen yday's Mahabharata - Lord Krishna's teaching to Arjun touches upon
this on how the one on adharmic path is corrected and this correction is dhaya
indeed more than a punishment. So, I
loved your statement above on this. So true.</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">On the historical front or Ekta's
tagline: as I had mentioned before, I am not competent enough to talk on Mughal
history. Yes, I relish history, but not
an expert and so I will refrain from commenting on that. But would like to share that I have great
regards for the effort put in by Abhay and friends and will openly admit that I
trust their posts, it appeals to me and I will stick to it till it is proven
against with hard facts...just as I have regards and trust your amazing posts
on Multifaceted Akbar.</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">On your point, if not Jodha
someone else: </font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">I respect your views on this and
do not want to perse debate, though my position on this also remains as shared
in my post before. So, let us agree to
disagree, though I see that there are few things that we do agree upon still.😉 </font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">However, I just wanted to clarify
my case </font>

<font color="#cc0000"><div>

<font size="3">- firstly, I totally agree with
your point and I have said so before also that credit primarily goes to the
person who is open enough, a matured soul to grasp it when given, while this
may not be the case in less matured souls and hence the resultant loss. But the Universe (in my terminology God) in
her compassion, and being unbiased, offers the same to both. One avails while the other ignores. </font>

</font>

</p><p><font color="#cc0000" size="3">I would also like to
leave behind a couple of thoughts:</font>

<font size="3"><font color="#cc0000">- <font face="Calibri">Sri
Dattatreya recognizes 24 Gurus, and as we know these include snake, elephant,
moth to pigeon to what not. Now, they
did not teach him directly, he out of his maturity observed and learnt from
them. But he still recognizes them as
his gurus. I wonder where is the room
for gratitude or recognition of anyone else in one's life, if everything is just
treated as sent by God? While it is true that it is all ordained and sent by
God technically, as I had mentioned before from a vyavaharic standpoint the
role of these god sent cannot be dismissed, especially when the greatness of a matured
soul which is open to grasp things also falls in the realm of the vyavaharic
standpoint. Else, it could be argued
that the maturity of the soul is also God's doing and the individual had no
role to play there. And I suppose we are
not discussing this here.</font></font></font>

<font size="3"><font color="#cc0000">- <font face="Calibri">it
could have been anything else instead of a snake or a moth in the case of Sri
Dattatreya also (just like it could have been anything other than Jodha). But, the fact that it happened to be a moth
then from where the teaching was drawn, it was recognized as a guru. Instead of moth, if it was an ant the, the
ant would have been recognized instead. The fact that something was an
instrument to bring about the change is recognizable indeed. (In the history,
if Ruqaiyya had played a more responsible role (based on my limited understanding
of Mughal history), she would have been glorified today instead by all and by
her husband too. While the regards for Jodha is seen - unless we conclude that
Akbar is blinded by love and his decisions are merely based on that). And I
repeat, this does not belittle or question the individual soul's maturity. The
catalyst any day is only a catalyst. (That
is why I had said that Akbar's openness to learn from others is the most
adorable quality in him according to me and the primary reason for him to be
what he was). </font></font></font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">Taking Swami
Vivekananda example itself, he was a such
a matured soul, but can the role of Sri Ramakrishna be ignored still? Agreed,
instead of Sri Ramakrishna someone could also have been sent by God for this
role, but the fact that it was Sri Ramakrishna who was ordained to play this
role, and thereby who is recognized and glorified today.</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">Clarification: I am not nowelevating Jodha to
the position of a guru. These are
examples to establish my point.</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">(Also just as we
recognize that MA or Bhairma Khan had negative influence on Akbar during his
younger days and attribute his weakness then to them, the positive role of
Jodha or a Hamida Bano or a Salima Begum can also be recognized and attributed
to them)</font>

<font color="#cc0000" size="3">Now, having talked about Sri
Vivekananda, it is nice to see that Akbar has been sung by great ones. But one
thing that does come to my mind is that, this act by them need not necessarily
endorse him as a best personality all though his life - like his wrong doings in
younger days (if as per history so). His
post transformation era could have been sung about instead - meaning, I repeat, not necessarily imply that he
was all through great from birth. Example: Valmiki in his younger days (as Ratnakar) was
a robber and murderer. We know he transformed into a great soul later. So, the
fact that he has written the glorious Ramayana and is regarded as a great soul by
all does not erase his evil behavior when young. </font>

Originally posted by: roshanehkhan

Dear Roshaneh Khan,

Correction noted😊

I was trying to avoid quote boring facts and figures...but now i will..

1. 40 plus is not too old to get pregnant. Several examples have been quoted by other writers here...I'll further support with data...

According to Henri Leridon, PhD, an epidemiologist with the French Institute of Health and Medical Research, of women trying to get pregnant, without using fertility drugs or in vitro fertilization.

At age 30

75% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year

91% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years.

At age 35

66% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year

84% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years.

At age 40

44% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year

64% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years.

I agree that this study was done in modern times but female anatomy and physiology as well as the natural method of conception hasn't changed since the 16th century...so this should be enough to convince anyone who understands numbers that a woman above 40 can conceive.

2. Yes, having successive pregnancies can affect the health of the mother and the child...however, does it mean that all mothers and infants fail to survive as a result of that? No...and most likely a pregnant woman in the Mughal royal household had access to the the best available medical facilities in those days, lived in a hygienic environment and had no reason to be malnourished...therefore the chance of survival of the mother as well as the child has to be higher than the rest of the population. Socioeconomic factor has always remained a major factor determining mother, infant and child mortality, both historically and today...read this on UNICEF website.

3. Babies born before term have higher morbidity and mortality...i agree...it is possible that the twins were preterm( not uncommon in twin pregnancies)...but do all preterm babies die? ...NO...Again, a preterm baby had a better chance of survival in royal Mughal household...Murad showed evidence of delayed milestones...not uncommon in kids born preterm.

4. Do you( or anyone else) also hv a question about the number of pregnancies( too many?) ...in medical terms total fertility rate of MUZ? ...the answer is ...yes, a woman can have 10 pregnancies during her lifetime...fertility rate is dependent on many factors but has nothing to do with the medical conditions in 16th century. Fertility rates in some of the poorest countries in sub Saharan Africa with little or no medical facilities is 6.5 or above per United Nation population prospects...and this is an average...so most likely, there are woman who do get pregnant 7 times or more.

I hope I have answered your questions...however, feel free to send a PM if you have any other questions... It is impossible to go back in time...but we can use the information we have and combine our knowledge and common sense to prove or refute a theory.

Going back to your post...yes, I am not claiming that MUZ had all these kids...I am stating a fact that "MUZ had all these kids" cannot be challanged from a medical standpoint.

Edited by Cleo12345 - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Hi Kaana,

I am spellbound by your arguments. You proceed so coolly and logically and establish your case so well. This post is next only to Abhay's original post.

I am posting from mob. So no icons. Or I would have given u lots of applause icons.

What you say is true.

If God does everything, then Akbar can't be termed great. If Akbar is considered great, was he born great?

No.

There was a transformation. Many were responsible for this. We have to give them credit.

Yes, Akbar himself was ready to evolve. Since we are talking of God and universe, when we are ready to evolve, God sends a guru. Or a key, like Adi said.

among all these people, one of the earliest and lasting till the end positive influence on Akbar was HK. She must be given credit for enabling him to change himself, if not for changing him directly.
A positive influence may or may not be given the status of a guru. Depends on how u look at it. We may even call her a role model.

When the world over, it is recognized that behind every great man stands a great woman, why should we find it hard to accept the role of his wife in molding his personality?

(It is not just a one way street. Both molded each other and helped each other evolve to a higher spiritual plane. )

I also want to quote an example, Kaana. Kabir saw his guru and God standing together. He bowed to his guru first. He didn't think the guru was just an instrument sent by God. He saw his guru as the instrument who enabled him (Kabir) to see God. So for him, his guru was more important than even God.

Likewise, we have to be grateful to all those who shape our personality. Akbar's gratitude to Jodha can be seen in the powers and titles he gave her and the parity which she enjoyed along with him.

Yes, if it was someone else, that someone else would be revered today. After all, we do not revere Jodha for being Bharmal's daughter. She is revered for shaping the destiny of the greatest Mughal emperor and his empire.

You are right in saying that the instrument (here Jodha) is specially chosen by God and cannot be anyone random. It is said Akbar himself had a divine vision of HK at Ajmer Sharif before his marriage.

So it seems HK's role in Akbar's life was divinely ordained and should be accepted as such.

Originally posted by: Cleo12345

Awesome Cleo. That was solid information based on sound data. I also had a couple of queries on the health of the kids etc., you have clarified all probable questions. Neat! Too impressive. Take a bow!😊