saa;Gar-e jalvah-e sarshaar hai har ;zarrah-e
;xaak
shauq-e diidaar balaa aa))inah-saamaa;N niklaa
1) it's a brimful/intoxicated cup/glass of glory/appearance,
every grain of dust
2) the ardor for/of sight/vision turned out to be fearfully-much mirror-'equipped'
sarshaar : 'Overflowing, brimful, full... steeped, soaked... ; intoxicated, drunk'. (Platts p.654)
saamaa;N : 'Furniture, baggage, articles, things, paraphernalia; requisites, necessaries, materials, appliances; instrument, tools, apparatus; provision made for any necessary occasion, necessary preparations; pomp, circumstance; --measure, quantity, proportion; order, arrangement, disposition; mode; custom, habit; power, strength; probity; opulence; understanding, reason, intellect; --boundary, limit; landmark'. (Platts p.627)
SETS == A,B
JALVAH: {7,4}
MIRROR: {8,3}
ZARRAH: {15,12}
For background see S. R. Faruqi's choices.
On the range of idiomatic usages of balaa , see {58,1}. In the usage here, it seems to mean something like 'fearfully much': basically, 'extremely much' with slight negative overtones. By comparison to 'monstrously much' or 'disastrously much' in English, the negative overtones seem to be a good bit milder; the literal meaning of balaa is overridden by colloquial usage.
What exactly does it mean to be aa))inah-saamaa;N ? Undoubtedly, it means having a mirror as saamaa;N . But then, look at the range of meanings for the versatile saamaa;N (see the definition above). The most basic sense seems to be 'equipment' (as when we use it to refer to bags and suitcases). But there are also other possibilities, like 'measure, quantity' or 'custom, habit' or 'power, strength' or 'understanding, reason' or 'boundary, limit'. Obviously, readings like 'mirror-measured' or 'mirror-accustomed' or 'mirror-powered' or 'mirror-minded' or 'mirror-bounded' would yield very different readings.
Then we need to ask, what is the connection between the two lines? Do they represent separate situations in two different domains (the situation of the dust-grain is-- or is not-- like that of the ardor for sight)? Do they represent a single situation (in which the dust-grain is the possessor of the ardor for sight)? Do they represent some other relationship, such as cause and effect?
The reading that I particularly like is one in which the first line illustrates a particular situation, and the second line explains it. Every grain of dust is radiant with the brilliance of Divine glory/appearance; this is because its ardor for sight causes it to work remarkably well as a mirror, or to equip itself fearfully much with mirrors, or something of the sort. Thus it's able to show in itself, and reflect out into the world, the sun's dazzling rays.
This kind of mirroring is something that sand-grains are extremely fond of doing: see {15,12} for a variety of examples. Their containing mica and other glittery, refractive minerals makes their behavior more plausible. In the present verse, we have explicitly 'dust-grains'. Does this mean that through sheer will-power, through 'ardor for sight', the dust-grains have turned themselves into sand-grains?
Gyan Chand:
In every dust-grain the intoxicating glory/appearance of the True Beloved is showing itself to us. Every grain is a mirror of His beauty. How many mirrors our ardor for sight created! (70-71)