Ghazal 3, Verse 3

Nazm:

That is, the time of passion passed as if in a dream. (3)

== Nazm page 3

Bekhud Mohani:

That is, what we had understood about You, was nothing but a thought of our own-- and that too a thought in the state of dreaming. (6)

Chishti:

If the addressee of 'you' be taken to be the world, then the meaning will be that in reality worldly life is a deception. (240)

Naiyar Masud:

It has not been said that in a dream, 'I' had dealings with you. It has been said that in a dream 'Thought' had dealings with you. And all the beauty of the verse is hidden in this word. (103)

Faruqi:

But if 'Thought' did the transactions, and not I, then what is meant by 'Thought'? Here the first idea is that the speaker, saying this, knows that since he was sleeping, he was not the doer of whatever happened in the dream-world, the doer was only his 'Thought'. Thus it's clear that here the philosophical meanings of 'Thought' are intended: that is, the power that keeps safe the images/aspects collected by the senses, at the time when those images/aspects would not be present....

In this way, there are two important things in the verse: the first is that the doer of the transactions was 'Thought'; and the second, that the speaker doesn't remember what those transactions were. The interpretation of 'there was neither loss, nor was there profit' is just this: I no longer remember the details of that dream, and perhaps this was natural, because the doer of those transactions was 'Thought', not I. In this way this verse expresses the theme of human action being trifling/unprofitable; but the tone is so firm and forceful that there's no suspicion at all of emotionality. He's composed a devastating verse. (2006: 32-34)

FWP:

SETS == FILL-IN; OPPOSITES
EYES {3,1}

COMMERCE verses: {3,3}; {3,11x}; {21,10}; {58,5}; {60,7}; {61,5}; {62,4}; {66,7}; {67,2}; {79,2}; {91,1}; {110,8}; {114,7}; {129,5x}; {130,2}; {141,2}; {154,2}; {162,11}; {164,4}; {164,7}; {168,1}; {173,8}; {174,2}; {201,8}; {210,2}; {212,5x}; {213,1}; {214,8}; {226,4}; {233,9}

DREAMS verses: {3,3}; {4,13x}; {10,10}; {44,5x}; {81,8x}; {84,1}; {97,3}; {98,10}; {121,7}; {129,5x}; {145,9x}; {145,14x}; {155,2}; {158,3}; {193,1}; {194,5}; {222,1}; {223,6x}; {226,7x}; {229,8x}

The heaped-up ambiguities of the first line cry out for resolution or clarification. Is the transaction a mere dream? A mere thought? And above all, what is thought in a dream? What kind of transaction is it? The first line inclines us to guess that it might be a romantic transaction or 'affair'. After all, a whole subcategory of ghazal verses is called 'description of an affair' [mu((aamalah-bandii]. Could there have been great joy, or suffering, while the eyes were closed-- a whole dream of passion? We wait for what will surely be a romantic second line of love and loss.

In the oral performance arena of the mushairah, the interval between the first line and the second one is often considerably (and even coquettishly) prolonged. This increases the shock value of the second line when it comes: the imagery is not romantic at all, but entirely drawn from the world of business, and the outcome is both neutral-- there was neither profit nor loss-- and neutrally reported. Thus the interpretive space generated by the verse becomes much larger, and full of narrative possibility.

Was the dream literal, or metaphorical? And in the second line, were those eyes that opened literal, or metaphorical, or both? What did really happen, anyway? The commercial imagery-- transaction, profit, loss-- and the static, status-quo result leave the question of tone entirely open. Is the tone bitter, rueful, resigned, philosophical, neutral?

And since we never do find out what the transaction or affair was anyway, this is one of those haunting verses with a carefully contrived reflective surface. It's the kind of verse into which we are thrown back onto our own resources, and forced to read pretty much what we like. While this verse plays with dreams, {14,3} similarly plays with madness.