More on "husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai ..."
Sushil Sharma
the ALUP thread with subject line "aek Khush-Khabari!"]
Rajkumar Saahib aur Ravindra Saahib,
Namaskaar. I followed your discussion on this "beautiful" she'r
husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai
"maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
with a lot of interest and wanted to add a few comments. Keeping the
admonishment by Abida Saahibaa on digressions from the theme of that
thread in mind, I am taking the liberty of starting this new thread.
I request both of you and other ALUPers to take the trouble of
expressing their opinions on my musings (should I say, rantings :-)
on this topic.
First of all, the word "husn" in classical Urdu and Persian
poetry has been traditionally used in its metaphysical sense,
owing to the influence of Sufi philosophy. In that sense, it
purports to the "divine beauty" or the "husn-e-haqiqi", that
manifests itself in all worldly shapes and forms. A few examples:
"thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
Khurshiid me.n bhii us hii kaa zarraa-e-zahuur thaa"
- Meer
(agar yeh she'r Khudaa-e-suKhan ne na kahaa hotaa, to shaayad
UVR saahib kee kisee ghazal kaa maqtaa hotaa, right?) --LOL!
and now, an example that is surprizingly close to the she'r of
this discussion
"dehr juz jalwaa-e-yaktaai-e-maashooq naheeN
ham kahaaN hote agar husn na hotaa KhudbeeN?"
- Ghalib
(BTW, I did not find this Ghalib ghazal anywhere on
the Internet, including Nita Ji's site. I may post it
on ALUP as soon as time and my (scanty) knowledge of Nastaliq
script permits. I am quoting it from "Ghazals of Ghalib,
Oxford Univ. Press Delhi, ed. Aijaz Ahmad)
Mu'aaf kijeeyegaa Ravindra saahib, but in my humble opinion,
the "husn" in Josh saahib's she'r is not used for Eve, but
for the "divine beauty" as in the above two examples.
Now coming to the connection between this "husn-e-haqiqi" and
"taKhleeq". The great philosopher, sage and poet Ibn `Arabi
(AD 1165-1240, born in Spain, lived in Damascus for the longest
part of his life, left 300+ works, most famous are his
Futuhaat al-Makkiyah and Fusus al-Hikam) has had great influence
on the Islamic metaphysical thought and especially on the
Sufi school of it. One of his (and consequently of Sufism too)
most celebrated ideas was "the world is created by the Divine
Beauty, as 'it' wished to manifest/reveal/behold itself,
and thus the world reflects 'it' like a mirror image."
Finally, the word "ham" in the she'r under discussion is
used as singular, as Raj saahib has "singularly" pointed out
(throwing good hints, like a seasoned professor that he is, without
giving away the actual solution :-). Again, IMHO, this is
due to the fact "ham" here is not used in the usual sense
of "we" (which is plural) but in the (less common in stand-alone form
without being a part of aconjunction) singular sense of
(quoting from Platts, where this is the 3rd definition for "ham"):
"ham [Parsi & Pehl. ham; Zend ham; S. sm], adv. & conj. Also, even,
likewise, as well, as, same, similar, equal; in the same manner,
equally; -- together, with; both; one another, other, mutual,
mutually; ..."
Taken in this sense, "ham" here would point to the fact that
Khalq is "similar, like" the Divine Beauty that created it
as a mirror image in the quest of revealing "Itself".
Putting all of the above ideas together, my paraphrasing for
the she'r under discussion would be:
"The Divine Beauty also has an aspect of creation. When 'it'
said 'I' [as in 'let it be shown who am I' or 'let I be manifest']
then, the [world] similar [ham] to 'it' [like a mirror image],
was brought forth [niklaa]"
Text in [] is inserted by me.
Slightly off-topic, but interesting nevertheless, is the similarity
between this idea of Ibn `Arabi of the 12th century and the theory
of "vishisTaadvaitavaad" propounded by Ramaanujaachaarya (circa
11th-12th century). More interesting is the fact that
Raamaanujaacharyaa's
theory was central idea in Bhakti movement, and thus influenced
directly or indirectly most of the North Indian Bhakt poets, similarly
Ibn `Arabi's ideas greatly influenced Sufi thought, thus indirectly
influencing the classical Persian and Urdu poetry. This similarity
might have been a factor in great popularity of the Sufi saints
and poets in the Indian masses - the same populace that also revered
the Bhakti poets and their works.
Thanks for taking time to read through these looooong ravings of
a sleepyhead. I would be happy to see your comments.
Regards,
Sushil
--
u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message news:<9c085b63.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> rajkum...@hotmail.com (Raj Kumar) wrote in message news:<c10928a.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message news:<9c085b63.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai
> > > > > > "maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
> > > > > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > > I think one interpretation of the 'episode' that I alluded to is that
> > > She, having bit into the Apple (at the Snake's behest), *realized*
> > > her _self_ -- Gharaz k Un ko Khud kaa ehsaas huaa. yaa yooN kahiye k
> > > *Husn* ko *maiN* kaa, ehsaas huaa. And THEN She drew *HIS* attention
> > > to this realization, or knowledge (by her overt AND covert behavior).
> > > Whereby He realized not only his own _self_, but also the 'difference'
> > > between himself and her. And this is how the understanding of "We"
> > > occurred. THEN the rest of the world was born (taKhleeq kaa pehloo)!
> >
> > aap ka farmaan sar-aaNkhoN par, Ravindra Saahib, aur aap ki yeh
> > vazaahat, ba-sad eihteraam, aNdaraaj-e-daftar hui ---
> >
> > albatta, aek arz hai --- voh yeh k aap ki vazaahat ke anusaar to lafz
> > "ham" ko 'plural' hona chaaiye tha, jab-k Josh Saahib ke she'r meiN
> > yeh lafz 'singular' hai --- remember, "ham" paidaa huyaa, NOT "ham"
> > paidaa huye!!!
>
> ji haaN, Rajkumar-ji, maiN "huaa" kii hii baat kar rahaa thaa: mere
> Khayaal meN yahaaN "ham" ka ta'alluq 'the understanding of "We"' se
> hai (ain usii tarah jis tarah "maiN" kaa ta'alluq 'maiN ke ehsaas' se
> hai). In other words, when Husn said "I am", then [and ONLY then]
> was the singular thing called "We" born. yahii baat maiN ne darj-e-
> baalaa tehreer meiN bhii kahii hai. Observe the penultimate line from
> my doubly-quoted paragraph above.
>
> > > agar maNdarja-baalaa taqreer ko hamaari-aapki roz_marra kii zindagi ke
> > > muta'alliq interpret kiyaa jaaye, to yooN kah sakte haiN k -- hamesha
> > > Husn hii ko pehle apne "hone" kaa ehsaas hotaa hai (even if sometimes
> > > only implicitly, such as in terms of the onset of sharm-o-hayaa, naaz-
> > > o-andaaz, etc). ishq ko Husn kaa ehsaas qadre ba'ad meN hotaa hai ...
> > > lekin jab hotaa hai, to -- un donoN ke 'mel' se -- kaise kaise mo'jeze
> > > ho jaate haiN, aur kin kin toofaanoN kii taKhliiq ho jaatii hai!
> >
> > vaaqe'ii, is "irtebaat" se jo besh-bahaa mo'jize roo-numaa huye haiN,
> > un ka to koi badal hi naheeN hai --- magar, phir bhi, lafz "ham" ke
> > (singular aNdaaz meiN) paidaa hone ki tuk kahaaN banti hai?
>
> I think "yes", and in a similar sense as the above. Recall that this
> "ham" [i.e., lover and beloved] is said to be a single unit, even though
> it is comprised of two distinct individuals -- or at least that's what
> these cliche's about "do jism ek jaan", "man kaa milan", etc. supposedly
> teach us. My take is that without Husn's realization of "maiN", there
> is no 'ishq', and consequently no way this "ham" can be born, even in
> purely 'mortal' terms.
>
>
> > > Indeed, one might even say that "ishq" is itself a taKhleeq of Husn
> > > -- while it is some would angrily frown upon this if one were talking
> > > of this Husn in connection with Hawwa or some "ordinary" woman (instead
> > > of Husn=Khuda), just think about it -- if there were no Husn, would
> > > there be any reason for ishq exist??? (haqeeqi or majaazi, take your
> > > pick)
> >
> > Hmmmmmmmmm! ab, yahaaN par, to aap mahaa-taKhleeqi ho rahe haiN,
> > Ravindra ji, magar zaraa Ghaur to keejiye Maulaana Haali ke is she'r
> > par ---
> >
> > pesh-az-zuhoor-e-ishq, KISII ka nishaaN na thaa!!!
> > thaa husn mezbaan, koi meh_maaN na thaa!!!!!!!!!!! :-))
>
> waah! sh'er to bahut achchhaa hai! aur aap hii ki dayaa se maiN ne
> ise pehle bhi sun rakhaa hai. :)) But it doesn't really contradict
> anything I have written above, does it? Maulana saahib farmaate haiN
> k ishq ke zuhoor se pehle ... (kisii kaa nishaaN na thaa, magar woh
> yeh bhi farmaate haiN k) Husn [mezbaan] thaa! This is almost exactly
> what I have said -- ishq kii taKhleeq se pehle Husn thaa! Note that
> Maulana Haali does not state anything about the *cause* of zuhoor-e-
> ishq, but -- if we are still within the confines of the 'field' that
> contains the 'episode' which I had initially alluded to, then -- it is
> assumed that an essential prerequisite of zuhoor-e-"X" is taKhleeq-e-"X"
> (because, infact, everything except One is *created* before it can *be*).
> Thus, it is quite trivial to explain this with reference to ishq-e-
> haqeeqi? In terms of ishq-e-majaazi? Well, actually that's trivial
> too, isn't it? :))
>
>
> Khuloos-kesh
> -UVR.
Raj Kumar
> [For previous postings related to this subject, please see
> the ALUP thread with subject line "aek Khush-Khabari!"]
>
> Rajkumar Saahib aur Ravindra Saahib,
>
> Namaskaar. I followed your discussion on this "beautiful" she'r
>
> husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai
> "maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
>
> with a lot of interest and wanted to add a few comments.
Sushil Saahib:
I am delighted to see your response to this query. Ordinarily, I might
have decided to stay quiet on it but the fact remains that, ever since
I read your learned post on that Faiz she'r "aaKhir-e-shab ke
ham-safar ----- ", I felt obliged to respond to you in the affirmative
--- not because your understanding and interpretation of that she'r
came closest to mine but because you were one of the few ALUPers who
understood the term "aaKhir-e-shab" correctly!
As I have said before, the first word in a Faarsi izaafat --- A-e-B
--- is invariably a noun (NEVER an adjective)! The second word, of
course, can be a noun or an adjective! Keeping this in mind, the word
"aaKhir" in that she'r could never mean "aaKhiri"! I have no doubt in
my mind that this guy --- aaGhaa Shaahid Ali (I hope, that is the
right name) --- is "dead wrong" on this one!
It is quite possible that Yogesh Saahib will find this statement a bit
too harsh but he knows (as well as I know) how often FitzGerald
mis-interpretted Omar Khayyam!
Against that discouraging background, your post, Sushil Saahib, was
indeed a breath of freshness!
I, in fact, was preparing to get ready to write something more in that
thread, especially in response to Yogesh Saahib's request, but was
silenced by the "restraining order" declared by UVR Saahib --- who, in
his Solomonic verdict, asked us to be decent enough to "hold back"
and, in the words of the famous mathematician Mark Katz, "let people
suffer in perpetual ignorance"!!!
>
>
> First of all, the word "husn" in classical Urdu and Persian
> poetry has been traditionally used in its metaphysical sense,
> owing to the influence of Sufi philosophy. In that sense, it
> purports to the "divine beauty" or the "husn-e-haqiqi", that
> manifests itself in all worldly shapes and forms.
Sushil ji, I must admit right away that I, in my up-bringing from an
"adorable infant" to an "affable youngman", grew up to be foreign to
this "suufi philosophy", this "divine beauty" or this "husn-e-haqeeqi"
(for which you might blame my parents, though I wouldn't --- for they,
I honestly feel, did the best job they could!). I, to be truthful,
have no idea what these "cliches" mean and I simply wonder why people
bring them up while discussing matters that are so mundane!
> A few examples:
> "thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
> Khurshiid me.n bhii us hii kaa zarraa-e-zahuur thaa"
> - Meer
I really love it when someone quotes a she'r from Meer; however,
Sushil ji, the quote should be right, which isn't the case here! :-))
Please consult your reference carefully and you'll see what the error
is!
jis soorat meiN aap ne is she'r ko darj kiya hai, us soorat meiN is
she'r ka doosra misra Khaarij-az-baihr hai!
> (agar yeh she'r Khudaa-e-suKhan ne na kahaa hotaa, to shaayad
> UVR saahib kee kisee ghazal kaa maqtaa hotaa, right?) --LOL!
Sushil ji, Khudaa-raa, aek Khaarij-az-baihr she'r ko hamaare "ubharte
huye fan-kaar" janaab-e UVR Saahib ke naam se mat mansoob keejiye!
eeN-hazrat, agarche apne aap ko "nau-mashq" shaa'ir kehte haiN magar
zamaana gavaah hai k yeh saahib 'vazn' ki ramz to Khoob pehchaante
haiN. maana k is she'r ke doosre misre meiN lafz-e Khursheed aayaa
hai, phir bhi yeh she'r (chooN-k Khaarij-az-baihr hai) UVR ka naheeN
ho sakta. I guarantee it! :-))
Now, I know very well what "error" you have committed in transcribing
this she'r here. However, I [being a seasoned professor, as "someone"
recently, and I think mistakenly!, made a declaration to this effect
:-))] won't tell you what the error is --- even though this error is
staring at me so starkly! :-))
-------------
Digression mu'aaf, Meer ke is she'r meiN "zabaan" ki aek aisi
ifaadiyat shaamil hai k jis ka 'ronaa' maiN kayee baar ro chukaa hooN
magar koi sun_ne ko raazi naheen hua
--- aur voh hai lafz "hi" ka ist'emaal!
dekhiye, hamaare guru ji ke guru ji keh rahe haiN --- "us hi ka", NOT
"us ka hi"!
goya, lafz "hi" ko kisi bhi fiqre ya kisi bhi misre meiN 'subject' ke
saath aanaa chahiye, na ke ba'ad meiN!
mere paas, is baat ki saiNkaRoN misaaleN (esaateza ke kalaam meiN se)
maujood haiN, albatta fil-haal janaab-e Hafeez J. ka yeh misra zehn
meiN aa rahaa hai; farmaate haiN k
"ham hi meiN thii na koii baat, yaad na tum ko aa sake"!
nateeja yeh niklaa k --- one should never say:
"ham meiN hi thii na koii baat, -------------"!
I hope, someone gets it!
I mentioned this point for the simple reason that, just now (when I
returned home after a gruelling day at the university), I saw an entry
by Vikaas Saahib for ALUP Ghazal [2], jis meiN un ka doosra misra hai:
kaho kyaa aar hai "ham se hi" keh sunaane meiN!
yooN to is qist ke munsif, janaab-e Irfaan Saahib, is misre ki
"naa-saazi-e-sehat" par apna fatva saadar kareN ge hi, phir bhi ain
mumkin hai k voh lafz "hi" ke "be-jaa istemaal" par dhyaan na de
paayeN --- vajah us ki yeh k aaj-kal un ki beshtar mehnat irsaal-karda
misroN ke Khaarij-az-baihr hone par sarf ho rahi hai! :-((
In any case, what I wanted to say is this:
ham se hi ---> ham hi se!
-------------
>
> Mu'aaf kijeeyegaa Ravindra saahib, but in my humble opinion,
> the "husn" in Josh saahib's she'r is not used for Eve, but
> for the "divine beauty" as in the above two examples.
In my humble opinion, Sushil Saahib, the word 'husn' here refers
neither to "Havva mayya" --- who, in my opinion, looked more like
Mother Teresa than like Parveen Baabi" --- nor to any hypothetical
entity that most people call "husn-e-haqeeqi"! I think, this word
simply refers to one's own mehbooba or to some "ancient mehbooba", who
(in her own time) fired someone's imagination to the hilt and, in the
end, left him in lurch ---
much before mine left me in lurch!" :-((
>
> Now coming to the connection between this "husn-e-haqiqi" and
> "taKhleeq". The great philosopher, sage and poet Ibn `Arabi
> (AD 1165-1240, born in Spain, lived in Damascus for the longest
> part of his life, left 300+ works, most famous are his
> Futuhaat al-Makkiyah and Fusus al-Hikam) has had great influence
> on the Islamic metaphysical thought and especially on the
> Sufi school of it. One of his (and consequently of Sufism too)
> most celebrated ideas was "the world is created by the Divine
> Beauty, as 'it' wished to manifest/reveal/behold itself,
> and thus the world reflects 'it' like a mirror image."
Come on, Sushil ji, yeh "falfasi log" to aisi baateN haaNkte haiN k jo
Khud un ki apni samajh meiN bhi naheeN aateeN. to, phir bhalaa, ham
jaise "gaNvaaroN" ki samajh meiN kyaa aayeN gi?
>
> Finally, the word "ham" in the she'r under discussion is
> used as singular, as Raj saahib has "singularly" pointed out
> (throwing good hints, like a seasoned professor that he is, without
> giving away the actual solution :-). Again, IMHO, this is
> due to the fact "ham" here is not used in the usual sense
> of "we" (which is plural) but in the (less common in stand-alone form
> without being a part of aconjunction) singular sense of
> (quoting from Platts, where this is the 3rd definition for "ham"):
I am glad that you agreed with me that the word "ham" here is
singular.
Even so, I hesitate to agree with your interpretation of what it means
here --- the one based on the 3rd meaning of this word, as given by
Platts ji mahaaraaj!!
No, I am afraid, this she'r means something else to me!
I think, I'll reserve my judgement for the time being --- and would
wait (till eternity) to hear what our esteemed UVR Saahib has to say
in this regard!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Sarvjit Goraya
> > "maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
Esteemed Intellegentsia,
Should a shepard boy intrude Solomons parley?!
I see the second misra as:
'Onset of husn reveals self-realisation ("maiN / I"), especially the
power to manipulate and control; that then leads to pride and 'maiN'
becomes 'Ham'.'
I apologise for not including extensive bibliography and references.
Regards
Sarvjit Goraya
Yogesh Sethi
>
> ... Ordinarily, I might
> have decided to stay quiet on it but the fact remains that, ever since
> I read your learned post on that Faiz she'r "aaKhir-e-shab ke
> ham-safar ----- ", I felt obliged to respond to you in the affirmative
> --- not because your understanding and interpretation of that she'r
> came closest to mine but because you were one of the few ALUPers who
> understood the term "aaKhir-e-shab" correctly!
>
> As I have said before, the first word in a Faarsi izaafat --- A-e-B
> --- is invariably a noun (NEVER an adjective)! The second word, of
> course, can be a noun or an adjective! Keeping this in mind, the word
> "aaKhir" in that she'r could never mean "aaKhiri"! I have no doubt in
> my mind that this guy --- aaGhaa Shaahid Ali (I hope, that is the
> right name) --- is "dead wrong" on this one!
> ...
>
> Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Raj Sahib, I too had decided to drop this subject but you bring it up
again and with lot of superlatives. My apologies to Sushil Sahib for
being forced to respond in this thread. Whether one agrees with
Shahid's interpretation or not is one's privilege. But a cheap
outburst like "dead wrong" is not adequate in lieu of a scholarly
refutation of the author's opinion whose book "The Rebels's
Silhouette" published in 1991 has since seen several reprints.
You continue to repeat the point about the literal translation of the
訴zaafat', which is not in contention, but fail to complete your own
interpretation of the couplet. Instead of first dwelling on the
literal translation and then taking refuge in the metaphorical and
highly imaginative interpretation offered by Sushil Sahib, it would be
so much more fruitful if you could give us a glimpse of your own
complete understanding of this couplet. Thus, at least we will be able
to see your point of view in terms of the basic concept behind this
verse. I do look forward to it.
Regards,
Yogesh
Raj Kumar
> > > husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai
> > > "maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
>
> Esteemed Intellegentsia,
> Should a shepard boy intrude Solomons' parley?!
Why not, Sir? After all, Jesus Christ was also a shepherd boy! :-))
>
> I see the second misra as:
>
> 'Onset of husn reveals self-realisation ("maiN / I"), especially the
> power to manipulate and control; that then leads to pride and 'maiN'
> becomes 'Ham'.'
jahaaN tak is she'r ki baat hai, mera apna tajziya bhi kuchh aisa hi
hai, Sarvjit ji, --- ya'ani-k, lafz "ham" 'singular' hai aur is ke
ma'ani "we" ke naheeN haiN, is ke ma'ani haiN --- "an exalted I"!
goya, jab tak to "aam log" apne aap ko "maiN" kehte the, tab tak to
yeh lafz munaasib tha magar jab "us haseena" ne apne aap ko "maiN"
kahaa to use (aur, ho sakta hai, auroN ko bhi) yooN lagaa k yeh lafz
naa-kaafi hai! nateejatan, yeh huaa k, us ke "husn" ki Khaatir, lafz
"ham" ko eejaad karna paRaa taake voh apne aap ko "maiN" ki bajaaye
"ham" kahe aur, aisa karne se, apni "jumla sifaat" ke saath insaaf kar
paaye!
This is the way I understand this she'r. I wish, I had gone ahead that
afternoon and asked Arsh Saahib what, in his opinion, Josh Saahib had
meant to say here!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Sushil Sharma
>
> Sushil Saahib:
>
> I am delighted to see your response to this query. Ordinarily, I might
> have decided to stay quiet on it but the fact remains that, ever since
> I read your learned post on that Faiz she'r "aaKhir-e-shab ke
> ham-safar ----- ", I felt obliged to respond to you in the affirmative
> --- not because your understanding and interpretation of that she'r
> came closest to mine but because you were one of the few ALUPers who
> understood the term "aaKhir-e-shab" correctly!
Rajkumar Saahib,
Aadaab. I am honored by your approbation of my attempt on "aakhir-e-shab..."
though I honestly think you were overly generous in calling it a
"learned post". Kind words and frank criticism (donoN hi ki chand misaaleN
aap ke is Khat me maujood thiN) from veterans like you
serve as encouragement to us newcomers. Thanks for noticing and
commenting on this thread.
> >
> > First of all, the word "husn" in classical Urdu and Persian
> > poetry has been traditionally used in its metaphysical sense,
> > owing to the influence of Sufi philosophy. In that sense, it
> > purports to the "divine beauty" or the "husn-e-haqiqi", that
> > manifests itself in all worldly shapes and forms.
>
> Sushil ji, I must admit right away that I, in my up-bringing from an
> "adorable infant" to an "affable youngman", grew up to be foreign to
> this "suufi philosophy", this "divine beauty" or this "husn-e-haqeeqi"
> (for which you might blame my parents, though I wouldn't --- for they,
> I honestly feel, did the best job they could!). I, to be truthful,
> have no idea what these "cliches" mean and I simply wonder why people
> bring them up while discussing matters that are so mundane!
I made the mistake of not preceding the opening sentence of this
paragraph with "sometimes" or "occasionally". As it were, my statements
appeared vainglorious , and your "jhiDakee" on this, was fully
deserved. Aapkaa jawaab padh kar apnii ghalatee kaa ehsaas huaa
aur maiN dhaDaam se apane falsafii "high horse" se neeche aa giraa :-)
Also, recently I saw somewhere Ghalib quoted as saying
something like "shaa'ir ko tasavvuf shobhaa nahiN detA" (this
in spite of him writing more than a few verses steeped in tasavvuf :-),
and if that is what Ghalib says for a shaa'ir, surely the readers
must also avoid unnecessary "tasavvuf" as far as possible. Point
taken "basad-ehteraam".
>
> > A few examples:
> > "thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
> > Khurshiid me.n bhii us hii kaa zarraa-e-zahuur thaa"
> > - Meer
>
> I really love it when someone quotes a she'r from Meer; however,
> Sushil ji, the quote should be right, which isn't the case here! :-))
>
> Please consult your reference carefully and you'll see what the error
> is!
>
> jis soorat meiN aap ne is she'r ko darj kiya hai, us soorat meiN is
> she'r ka doosra misra Khaarij-az-baihr hai!
>
> > (agar yeh she'r Khudaa-e-suKhan ne na kahaa hotaa, to shaayad
> > UVR saahib kee kisee ghazal kaa maqtaa hotaa, right?) --LOL!
>
> Sushil ji, Khudaa-raa, aek Khaarij-az-baihr she'r ko hamaare "ubharte
> huye fan-kaar" janaab-e UVR Saahib ke naam se mat mansoob keejiye!
> eeN-hazrat, agarche apne aap ko "nau-mashq" shaa'ir kehte haiN magar
> zamaana gavaah hai k yeh saahib 'vazn' ki ramz to Khoob pehchaante
> haiN. maana k is she'r ke doosre misre meiN lafz-e Khursheed aayaa
> hai, phir bhi yeh she'r (chooN-k Khaarij-az-baihr hai) UVR ka naheeN
> ho sakta. I guarantee it! :-))
>
> Now, I know very well what "error" you have committed in transcribing
> this she'r here. However, I [being a seasoned professor, as "someone"
> recently, and I think mistakenly!, made a declaration to this effect
> :-))] won't tell you what the error is --- even though this error is
> staring at me so starkly! :-))
Before anything else, my sincere apologies, especially to Ravindra Saahib,
for not only incorrectly quoting the she'r, but also insinuating as if
Ravindra Saahib would commit such an error in his maqtaa. Having known
him in person and on ALUP, I must say your faith in his capabilities
is fully deserved.
My plight in this case, is of a "C grade" student who, takes help from
someone, and ends up with a "D-" :-) Unfortunately I left my copy of
Diwaan-e-Mir back in India, and while writing this post, instead of
quoting from memory, I copy-pasted from Nita Ji's website. Later on
I realized that same error is seen in the versions of this ghazal on
some other web sites too. To be fair, I have high regards for Nita Ji
and her web site, and neither is to be blamed for MY mistake of not
detecting the error before quoting it.
I have no pretensions of any expertise in the complexities of behr.
So, at the risk of further exposing my ignorance in this regard, may
I say that addition of a spurious "izaafat" in the misraa-e-saani
of this she'r, was the mistake that caused it to be "Khaarij-az-baihr"?
As far as my (limited) understanding goes, this she'r is in the
same behr as the Ghalib ghazal "muddat huee hai yaar ko mehmaaN
kiye hue", and the correct version would be
"thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
Khurshiid me.n bhi us hi kaa zarraa zahuur thaa"
I hope I got it right this time. I have now cross-checked it with
two versions in Urdu script. First in "Urdu Ghazal" by Dr. K.C. Kanda
(which contains some atrocious translations of some of the finest
ghazals, so I am averse to calling it a good reference), and second,
at the website (our Zafar saahib's favorite)
http://www.eurdubazaar.com/images/meer/g16.html
>
> >
> > Mu'aaf kijeeyegaa Ravindra saahib, but in my humble opinion,
> > the "husn" in Josh saahib's she'r is not used for Eve, but
> > for the "divine beauty" as in the above two examples.
>
> In my humble opinion, Sushil Saahib, the word 'husn' here refers
> neither to "Havva mayya" --- who, in my opinion, looked more like
> Mother Teresa than like Parveen Baabi" --- nor to any hypothetical
> entity that most people call "husn-e-haqeeqi"! I think, this word
> simply refers to one's own mehbooba or to some "ancient mehbooba", who
> (in her own time) fired someone's imagination to the hilt and, in the
> end, left him in lurch ---
> much before mine left me in lurch!" :-((
>
> >
> > Now coming to the connection between this "husn-e-haqiqi" and
> > "taKhleeq". The great philosopher, sage and poet Ibn `Arabi
> > (AD 1165-1240, born in Spain, lived in Damascus for the longest
> > part of his life, left 300+ works, most famous are his
> > Futuhaat al-Makkiyah and Fusus al-Hikam) has had great influence
> > on the Islamic metaphysical thought and especially on the
> > Sufi school of it. One of his (and consequently of Sufism too)
> > most celebrated ideas was "the world is created by the Divine
> > Beauty, as 'it' wished to manifest/reveal/behold itself,
> > and thus the world reflects 'it' like a mirror image."
>
> Come on, Sushil ji, yeh "falfasi log" to aisi baateN haaNkte haiN k jo
> Khud un ki apni samajh meiN bhi naheeN aateeN. to, phir bhalaa, ham
> jaise "gaNvaaroN" ki samajh meiN kyaa aayeN gi?
The epithet "gaNvaar" sure befits me.
>
> >
> > Finally, the word "ham" in the she'r under discussion is
> > used as singular, as Raj saahib has "singularly" pointed out
> > (throwing good hints, like a seasoned professor that he is, without
> > giving away the actual solution :-). Again, IMHO, this is
> > due to the fact "ham" here is not used in the usual sense
> > of "we" (which is plural) but in the (less common in stand-alone form
> > without being a part of aconjunction) singular sense of
> > (quoting from Platts, where this is the 3rd definition for "ham"):
>
> I am glad that you agreed with me that the word "ham" here is
> singular.
> Even so, I hesitate to agree with your interpretation of what it means
> here --- the one based on the 3rd meaning of this word, as given by
> Platts ji mahaaraaj!!
> No, I am afraid, this she'r means something else to me!
>
> I think, I'll reserve my judgement for the time being --- and would
> wait (till eternity) to hear what our esteemed UVR Saahib has to say
> in this regard!
>
> Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
On second reading, my own interpretation of this she'r posted here,
appeared more than justifiably "far-fetched" to myself. Though I have
a few other interpretations (with various degrees of "far-fetchedness"),
I find none of them satisfies me, let alone others. So I will hold
my breath and wait for you to provide your own explanation of this
she'r. I am sure you have something very ineteresting "up your sleeve"
here :-)
Regards,
Sushil
Raj Kumar
>
> > >
> > > First of all, the word "husn" in classical Urdu and Persian
> > > poetry has been traditionally used in its metaphysical sense,
> > > owing to the influence of Sufi philosophy. In that sense, it
> > > purports to the "divine beauty" or the "husn-e-haqiqi", that
> > > manifests itself in all worldly shapes and forms.
> >
> > Sushil ji, I must admit right away that I, in my up-bringing from an
> > "adorable infant" to an "affable youngman", grew up to be foreign to
> > this "suufi philosophy", this "divine beauty" or this "husn-e-haqeeqi"
> > (for which you might blame my parents, though I wouldn't --- for they,
> > I honestly feel, did the best job they could!). I, to be truthful,
> > have no idea what these "cliches" mean and I simply wonder why people
> > bring them up while discussing matters that are so mundane!
>
> I made the mistake of not preceding the opening sentence of this
> paragraph with "sometimes" or "occasionally". As it were, my statements
> appeared vainglorious , and your "jhiDakee" on this, was fully
> deserved.
Sushil Saahib:
sab se pehle to mujhe is baat ka eiteraaf karna hai k aap ki Angrezi
kamaal ki kai! huzoor, hamaare kaanoN meiN to aaj tak lafz
"vainglorious" ki bhanak tak naheeN paRi thi --- albatta, aap ki
haaliya tehreer ne to is durr-e-Khush-aab ko hamaari haqeer
"vocabulary" ka juzv-e-sheereeN banaa diyaa hai!
Thanks a lot!!!
aur jahaaN tak "jhiRki" ki baat hai, to huzoor yeh mera
tarz-e-taKhaatub hai jo k kayee dahaaiyoN se chalaa aa raha hai. vajah
is ki yeh hai k, chaahe Theoretical Physics ho chaahe Urdu shaa'iri,
maiN "precision" ka garveeda hooN! aur jo log mujhe qareeb se jaante
haiN voh mere is raviyye ko buraa naheeN maante; bal-k, ise
haNsi-Khushi savikaar karte haiN --- kiyooN-k voh jaante haiN k is
tarz-e-taKhaatub meiN kisi ki bhi dil-aazaari maqsood naheeN hoti,
bal-k us ki bhalaaii maqsood hoti hai!
> Aapkaa jawaab padh kar apnii ghalatee kaa ehsaas huaa
> aur maiN dhaDaam se apane falsafii "high horse" se neeche aa giraa :-)
> Also, recently I saw somewhere Ghalib quoted as saying
> something like "shaa'ir ko tasavvuf shobhaa nahiN detA" (this
> in spite of him writing more than a few verses steeped in tasavvuf :-),
> and if that is what Ghalib says for a shaa'ir, surely the readers
> must also avoid unnecessary "tasavvuf" as far as possible. Point
> taken "basad-ehteraam".
I am glad, you saw it the way I have always seen it. yeh
"tasavvuf-baazi" beshtar sho'raa ke saath be-insaafi ke mutaraadif hai
aur maiN ne kayee sho'raa ko is baat par raNjeeda hote dekha hai. un
ka farmaan hai k, bhai, ham to roz-marra ki baateN kehte haiN magar
yeh doosre log, hamaari Khaatir, kiyooN idhar udhar ki safaaiyaaN pesh
karne lagte haiN? yahaaN tak k aek saahib ne to, Chandigarh ke aek
mushaa'ire meiN, jab yeh dekha k kuchh aihbaab un ke kisi she'r ko
naagaah "tasavvuf" ka jaama pehnaa rahe haiN to unhoN ne, dukhii ho
kar, al-ul-ailaan arz kiyaa k, huzoor,
"jaise kii jaati hai, us tarah mohabbbat kii hai"!!!
Got it?
aur, aek baar, Khud ALUP par hamaare karam-farmaa janaab-e-Jameel
Saahib ne isi baat par dukh ka izhaar kiyaa tha k, kisi bhi she'r ko
samajhne ke liye, log kiyooN Khwaah-ma-Khwaah "tasavvuf" ki Dafli
bajaane lagte haiN --- jis par Khaaksaar ne apne aek zaati tajrube ka
zikr kiyaa tha. aur voh tajruba yeh tha, Sushil saahib.
[I hope, you are still with me and haven't switched the channels!
Pleeeease put your remote control down!!!] :-))
maiN, aek mushaa'ire meiN, apni aek Ghazal paRh rahaa tha aur jab is
she'r par pahuNchaa
tere aane ka bharosa to naheeN hai, phir bhi
ik pujaarii ne diyaa dil ka jalaa rakkhaa hai
to mere aek karam-farmaa bol uTThe k "vaah, vaa, Qais Saahib! kyaa
ma'arfat ka she'r kahaa hai aap ne"! goya, voh saahib lafz "pujaari"
se kuchh ziyaada hi 'impress' ho gaye the! :-))
is baat par, maiN ne dast-basta arz kiyaa k "huzoor, baat to aap ki
durust hai --- albatta, zaraa aglaa she'r dekhiye"!
aur, Sushil Saahib, agla she'r thaa:
na Khudaa se koi rishta, na butoN se naata
teri dehleez pe sar apna jhukaa rakkhaa hai!
maiN ne sharaaratan kahaa, "huzoor, ab is she'r pe apni mantiq
laRaaiye!"
Sushil Saahib, mu'aaf keejiye ga meri is be-jaa tavaalat ko --- magar
kyaa karooN? baat kehne ki thi, so kehna hi paRi!
Thanks for your endorsement of my views on UVR Saahib --- though the
fact remains that, by now, everyone on ALUP knows where everyone else
stands!
>
> My plight in this case, is of a "C grade" student who, takes help from
> someone, and ends up with a "D-" :-) Unfortunately I left my copy of
> Diwaan-e-Mir back in India, and while writing this post, instead of
> quoting from memory, I copy-pasted from Nita Ji's website. Later on
> I realized that same error is seen in the versions of this ghazal on
> some other web sites too. To be fair, I have high regards for Nita Ji
> and her web site, and neither is to be blamed for MY mistake of not
> detecting the error before quoting it.
>
> I have no pretensions of any expertise in the complexities of behr.
> So, at the risk of further exposing my ignorance in this regard, may
> I say that addition of a spurious "izaafat" in the misraa-e-saani
> of this she'r, was the mistake that caused it to be "Khaarij-az-baihr"?
> As far as my (limited) understanding goes, this she'r is in the
> same behr as the Ghalib ghazal "muddat huee hai yaar ko mehmaaN
> kiye hue", and the correct version would be
>
> "thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
> Khurshiid me.n bhi us hi kaa zarraa zahuur thaa"
>
> I hope I got it right this time. I have now cross-checked it with
> two versions in Urdu script. First in "Urdu Ghazal" by Dr. K.C. Kanda
> (which contains some atrocious translations of some of the finest
> ghazals, so I am averse to calling it a good reference), and second,
> at the website (our Zafar saahib's favorite)
> http://www.eurdubazaar.com/images/meer/g16.html
ain yihi Ghalati thi is she'r ki shakl meiN --- aur achchha hua k aap
ne is nabz ko bar-vaqt pakaR liyaa! aise maqaamaat par, maiN to apne
aap ko mahaaN-lucky samajhta hooN k, baGhair kisi mehnat ke, in baaton
ko yak-laKht bhaaNp leta hooN. I think, everyone here, who is
interested in becoming a regular Urdu poet, has got to develop this
"innate sense' for baihr --- without which, I am afraid, most of our
"nau-mashq" sho'raa will forever remain "nau-mashq"!
> >
> > >
> > > Now coming to the connection between this "husn-e-haqiqi" and
> > > "taKhleeq". The great philosopher, sage and poet Ibn `Arabi
> > > (AD 1165-1240, born in Spain, lived in Damascus for the longest
> > > part of his life, left 300+ works, most famous are his
> > > Futuhaat al-Makkiyah and Fusus al-Hikam) has had great influence
> > > on the Islamic metaphysical thought and especially on the
> > > Sufi school of it. One of his (and consequently of Sufism too)
> > > most celebrated ideas was "the world is created by the Divine
> > > Beauty, as 'it' wished to manifest/reveal/behold itself,
> > > and thus the world reflects 'it' like a mirror image."
> >
> > Come on, Sushil ji, yeh "falfasi log" to aisi baateN haaNkte haiN k jo
> > Khud un ki apni samajh meiN bhi naheeN aateeN. to, phir bhalaa, ham
> > jaise "gaNvaaroN" ki samajh meiN kyaa aayeN gi?
>
> The epithet "gaNvaar" sure befits me.
I assure you, Sushil ji, that this epithet befits me even more!
>
> >
> > Even so, I hesitate to agree with your interpretation of what it means
> > here --- the one based on the 3rd meaning of this word, as given by
> > Platts ji mahaaraaj!!
> > No, I am afraid, this she'r means something else to me!
> >
> > I think, I'll reserve my judgement for the time being --- and would
> > wait (till eternity) to hear what our esteemed UVR Saahib has to say
> > in this regard!
>
> On second reading, my own interpretation of this she'r posted here,
> appeared more than justifiably "far-fetched" to myself. Though I have
> a few other interpretations (with various degrees of "far-fetchedness"),
> I find none of them satisfies me, let alone others. So I will hold
> my breath and wait for you to provide your own explanation of this
> she'r. I am sure you have something very ineteresting "up your sleeve"
> here :-)
I have already given my reading on this she'r in my response to
Sarvjit Saahib.
I must, however, admit that other interpretations of this she'r could
be as valid as mine!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
UVR
An interesting interpretation, indeed, Raj Kumar-ji, and one that
is as elegant as it is simple. Far more sensible than the "Husn
refers to Eve" and the 'Eve'nt theory :) I was proposing during
the earlier incarnation of this thread. The more I think about
it, the more I like this interpretation over my original one.
I must thank Sushil saahib, too, for it is due to him that you
finally revealed your own take on this sh'er -- warna Abida-ji ne
to ham sab ko haRkaa ke rakh chhoRa thaa! :)
I do have some further thoughts on this, but at this point do not
have the time to write them up in detail. Suffice it to say that
I am not quite comfortable with the "regal 'We'", "exalted I" or
the "pride and power to manipulate and control" characterizations
here. I feel it has something to do with "sharm-o-hayaa", or, to
put it differently, with the fact that the singular 'ham' is also
used in our tehzeeb as a "polite plural" in cultured conversation.
The intention there is NOT to convey any feeling of exaltation,
pride or regality on the part of the addresser. Quite the contrary
-- it is used to convey a sense of 'humility'! (*) It is, as far
as I know, also a way of dressing one's words in a garb of 'decency'.
Then again, I could be completely mistaken :)
faqat,
-UVR.
PS. Irfan saahib touched, but obliquely, on this in his reply to
Abida-ji in re the various meanings of "ham", but RK saahib, to
the best of my recollection you did not. In any case, here's an
example of what I mean by "polite plural".
In primary school, I was taught to always request permission from
my teachers using "ham", rather than "maiN". For instance, if one
needed to step out of the class to answer Nature's call, one would
say in English "sir, may I go to the ...room", or in Hindi "maDam,
ham baathruum jaanaa chaahte haiN" OR "hameN ...ruum jaanaa hai."
Likewise, while returning from said peregrination, one would say
"May I come in, sir?" or "maDam, ham andar aa jaayeN?" Isn't it
rather inconceivable that a someone who has to request someone
else's permission even to answer the call of nature would be
assuming "royal airs"? Infact it was because one was expected to
accord the requisite level of respect to the ADDRESSED party that
this 'singular ham' was used in that context.
UVR
> rajkum...@hotmail.com (Raj Kumar) wrote:
>
> >
> > As I have said before, the first word in a Faarsi izaafat --- A-e-B
> > --- is invariably a noun (NEVER an adjective)! The second word, of
> > course, can be a noun or an adjective! Keeping this in mind, the word
> > "aaKhir" in that she'r could never mean "aaKhiri"! I have no doubt in
> > my mind that this guy --- aaGhaa Shaahid Ali (I hope, that is the
> > right name) --- is "dead wrong" on this one!
> > ...
> >
> > Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
>
> Raj Sahib, I too had decided to drop this subject but you bring it up
> again and with lot of superlatives. My apologies to Sushil Sahib for
> being forced to respond in this thread. Whether one agrees with
> Shahid's interpretation or not is one's privilege. But a cheap
> outburst like "dead wrong" is not adequate in lieu of a scholarly
> refutation of the author's opinion whose book "The Rebels's
> Silhouette" published in 1991 has since seen several reprints.
Yogesh saahib,
The mere fact that Mr. Ali's book has been reprinted several times in
the past 10 years should mean nothing to us. It ought not to influ-
ence our decision as to the validity of his interpretation.
There is nothing sacrosanct about anyone's interpretation. An inter-
pretation is nothing but an opinion, not a fact. And, of course,
opinions CAN BE WRONG. For example, there are people in this world
in whose opinion the earth is flat. I hope you agree with me that
they are "dead wrong" :))
Regarding the Faiz sh'er which is the bone of contention between you
and Raj Kumar saahib, I think it is pretty obvious that the single
point of disagreement was the meaning of the phrase "aaKhir-e-shab".
I think it takes a very 'creative' mind to interpret aaKhir-e-shab
[=last/end of night] as actually being "shab-e-aaKhir" [night, which
is the last one]. This is what Mr. Ali has done.
Before rushing to accept Mr. Ali's interpretation as correct, one
must ask oneself some simple questions -- Is there a cogent reason
one must reverse the qualifier and the qualified in this compound?
If Faiz writes "aaKhir-e-shab", is there a reason we must imagine
that he intended to write "shab-e-aaKhir"? Why, infact, did he
write "aaKhir-e-shab ke hamsafar" -- was it merely to confuse the
rest of the world? He could just as well have written "aaKhirii
shab ke hamsafar" and be done with it -- why didn't he do so? Is
it not possible that he had some real reason behind the choice of
his words? Also, is there any precedent for interpreting "aaKhir-
e-shab" as "aaKhirii shab", or, in general, for interpreting any
"A-e-B" compound as "B-e-A"?
Puny as my interpretive abilities may be in comparison to Mr. Ali's,
I can not see any justification for accepting his opinion on this
sh'er. Indeed, I know of no logic, whether in the context of this
sh'er, in the context of the Ghazal, in the context of this poet,
or in the context of Urdu poetry, which justifies translating the
phrase "aaKhir-e-shab" as "aaKhirii shab". Given this, I am not
in the wrong if I say that, in my opinion, Mr. Ali is "dead wrong"
in his opinion.
And my opinion could also be dead wrong ... :))
-UVR.
> You continue to repeat the point about the literal translation of the
> ‘izaafat', which is not in contention, but fail to complete your own
Sushil Sharma
...
> > I made the mistake of not preceding the opening sentence of this
> > paragraph with "sometimes" or "occasionally". As it were, my statements
> > appeared vainglorious , and your "jhiDakee" on this, was fully
> > deserved.
>
> Sushil Saahib:
>
> sab se pehle to mujhe is baat ka eiteraaf karna hai k aap ki Angrezi
> kamaal ki kai! huzoor, hamaare kaanoN meiN to aaj tak lafz
> "vainglorious" ki bhanak tak naheeN paRi thi --- albatta, aap ki
> haaliya tehreer ne to is durr-e-Khush-aab ko hamaari haqeer
> "vocabulary" ka juzv-e-sheereeN banaa diyaa hai!
> Thanks a lot!!!
Rajkumar Saahib,
Aadaab. Yeh to aap kee zarrah navaazee hai varnaa mujh Khaaksaar
ko to apnee maadaree zubaan (jo Rajasthani bhaasha ki eik boli hai)
ko bhi theek se samajhane aur bolne kee qaabiliyat kaa gumaaN naheeN,
Angrezi to door kee baat hai. Kaash meri Urdu meN bhi kuchh liyaaqat hotee
(vaise mujhe yeh shaq zaroor hai k ho na ho aap kaa ishaaraa kuchchh
isi taraf thaa :-)
>
> aur jahaaN tak "jhiRki" ki baat hai, to huzoor yeh mera
> tarz-e-taKhaatub hai jo k kayee dahaaiyoN se chalaa aa raha hai. vajah
> is ki yeh hai k, chaahe Theoretical Physics ho chaahe Urdu shaa'iri,
> maiN "precision" ka garveeda hooN! aur jo log mujhe qareeb se jaante
> haiN voh mere is raviyye ko buraa naheeN maante; bal-k, ise
> haNsi-Khushi savikaar karte haiN --- kiyooN-k voh jaante haiN k is
> tarz-e-taKhaatub meiN kisi ki bhi dil-aazaari maqsood naheeN hoti,
> bal-k us ki bhalaaii maqsood hoti hai!
Yaqeen rakhiye, maiN bhi aisi 'ibrat-baKhsh jhiRkiyoN ko buraa maanane
waaloN mein se naheeN.
Aur baat thi bhi dilchasp! Agar mujhe theek yaad hai, to aapne
is ghazal (Khaas taur se isi she'r) ka zikr chand arsa pahle
"kalaam-e-Parvez" wali laRi (thread) meN kiyaa thaa. Us waqt to
aap Amit Saahib ka pooree ghazal pesh karne ka anurodh Taal gaye the,
par ab meri bhi aap se iltezaa hai k, please ab to is ghazal ka
lutf hameN bhi uThaane dijiye, please ... :-) To ham log umeed
baandh rakkheN?
...
> > I have no pretensions of any expertise in the complexities of behr.
> > So, at the risk of further exposing my ignorance in this regard, may
> > I say that addition of a spurious "izaafat" in the misraa-e-saani
> > of this she'r, was the mistake that caused it to be "Khaarij-az-baihr"?
> > As far as my (limited) understanding goes, this she'r is in the
> > same behr as the Ghalib ghazal "muddat huee hai yaar ko mehmaaN
> > kiye hue", and the correct version would be
> >
> > "thaa musteaar husn se usake jo nuur thaa
> > Khurshiid me.n bhi us hi kaa zarraa zahuur thaa"
> >
> > I hope I got it right this time. I have now cross-checked it with
> > two versions in Urdu script. First in "Urdu Ghazal" by Dr. K.C. Kanda
> > (which contains some atrocious translations of some of the finest
> > ghazals, so I am averse to calling it a good reference), and second,
> > at the website (our Zafar saahib's favorite)
> > http://www.eurdubazaar.com/images/meer/g16.html
>
> ain yihi Ghalati thi is she'r ki shakl meiN --- aur achchha hua k aap
> ne is nabz ko bar-vaqt pakaR liyaa! aise maqaamaat par, maiN to apne
> aap ko mahaaN-lucky samajhta hooN k, baGhair kisi mehnat ke, in baaton
> ko yak-laKht bhaaNp leta hooN. I think, everyone here, who is
> interested in becoming a regular Urdu poet, has got to develop this
> "innate sense' for baihr --- without which, I am afraid, most of our
> "nau-mashq" sho'raa will forever remain "nau-mashq"!
Ab aap jaisa baihr-detector jantar to kam hi logoN ke naseeb mein
hotaa hai, phir bhi aap aur aap jaise aur aalim fazil ALUPers ke
karam se, mujh jaise nau-vaaridaane-e-bisaat-e-alup ko is raah meN
kuchh madad beshaq mil rahee hai.
Shukriyaa.
Sushil
Sushil Sharma
> > have decided to stay quiet on it but the fact remains that, ever since
> > I read your learned post on that Faiz she'r "aaKhir-e-shab ke
> > ham-safar ----- ", I felt obliged to respond to you in the affirmative
> > --- not because your understanding and interpretation of that she'r
> > came closest to mine but because you were one of the few ALUPers who
> > understood the term "aaKhir-e-shab" correctly!
> >
> > As I have said before, the first word in a Faarsi izaafat --- A-e-B
> > --- is invariably a noun (NEVER an adjective)! The second word, of
> > course, can be a noun or an adjective! Keeping this in mind, the word
> > "aaKhir" in that she'r could never mean "aaKhiri"! I have no doubt in
> > my mind that this guy --- aaGhaa Shaahid Ali (I hope, that is the
> > right name) --- is "dead wrong" on this one!
> > ...
> >
> > Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
>
> Raj Sahib, I too had decided to drop this subject but you bring it up
> again and with lot of superlatives. My apologies to Sushil Sahib for
> being forced to respond in this thread. Whether one agrees with
> Shahid's interpretation or not is one's privilege. But a cheap
> outburst like "dead wrong" is not adequate in lieu of a scholarly
> refutation of the author's opinion whose book "The Rebels's
> Silhouette" published in 1991 has since seen several reprints.
>
> You continue to repeat the point about the literal translation of the
> interpretation of the couplet. Instead of first dwelling on the
> literal translation and then taking refuge in the metaphorical and
> highly imaginative interpretation offered by Sushil Sahib, it would be
> so much more fruitful if you could give us a glimpse of your own
> complete understanding of this couplet. Thus, at least we will be able
> to see your point of view in terms of the basic concept behind this
> verse. I do look forward to it.
>
> Regards,
> Yogesh
Yogesh Saahib,
Adaab. I beg your pardon, but your point here has simply gone over
my (incapable, off course) head. Isn't it your (or Mr Ali's) interpretation
of this she'r that is in need of some "scholarly justification" here?
On one hand Raj Saahib's interpretation is not OK, for being a
"literal translation", on the other hand, you find the version I posted,
as being too "metaphorical" or "highly imaginative". Which way does one
go then? IMHO one can't go too far studying Urdu poetry if one eschews
metaphorical interpretations. I find the interpretation that starts at
"aakhir-e-shab" and arrives at "final night" by far more "imaginative"
than the one I posted :-)
Though I consider Fitzgerald a "decent English poet", probably you will
agree that he was "dead wrong" as a TRANSLATOR when we compare Omar
Khayyam's original text to some of his "interpretations". As far as number of
copies sold and number of reprints go, EF's books far exceed that
of Mr Ali. So number of reprints (or commercial success) won't make Mr Ali
a better translator in our opinion, will it? Unfortunately, Mr Ali is
dead (may his soul rest in peace), and we will never know HIS
justification for HIS idea of "final night".
Finally, in my limited experience with Urdu poetry, I have come across
several references to topics like qayaamat, hashr, day of judgement, death etc,
but never yet seen someone lamenting the fact that "it is his final night".
'End of night' on the other hand, is a well-known theme/metaphor in Urdu.
Mu'aaf keejiyegaa agar meree koi baat zabaan-daraazi lage, par mera
mansha maihaz apne Khayaalaat arz karnaa hai. Aap kaa, you being a vetran
ALUPer, ehteraam hameshaa kartaa huN.
Regards,
Sushil
Sushil Sharma
Aadaab. The interpretations of this she'r provided by both of
you are, as Ravindra Saahib wrote, far better than the previous
attempts (made by Ravindra Saahib and me), for both elegance
and simplicity. Hats-off, and "Thank You" to both of you!
Sarvjit Ji, I must say you proved by example how true intellect
shines forth in the fewest of words ... jab ke mujh sa ahmaq
tamaam laffazee ke baad bhi naaqis-ul-'aql hi nazar ataa hai,
nuktaadaaN nahiN :-)
Shukriyaa.
Sushil
--
rajkum...@hotmail.com (Raj Kumar) wrote in message news:<c10928a.02090...@posting.google.com>...
Yogesh Sethi
>
> Yogesh Saahib,
>
> Adaab. I beg your pardon, but your point here has simply gone over
Sushil Sahib, aadaab:
From your post I gather that this matter has developed some
misunderstanding of my position. Please permit me to try to put it in
an over all perspective and see if it makes any sense.
1. I had presented an interpretation of my own in my second post.
2. Raj Sahib objected to my interpretation and presented what I
thought was only a partial interpretation of the idea on which I asked
for clarification.
3. You presented an interpretation that I thought is a good alternate
to mine. I expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with Ali's
interpretation and posted it as just one more interpretation - I had
already posted my own interpretation earlier.
4. Raj Sahib said that his understanding of the couplet was closer to
yours but never in fact elaborated on his own version. But did call
Ali's interpretation "dead wrong".
5. To me it does not appear to be sufficient! It would be much better
if Raj Sahib does find it convenient to complete his own
interpretation. That would permit a comparison with the others on the
table and create an opportunity to decide which one is more appealing.
In a nut shell that is all there is to it. Please tell me how have I
erred in requesting a fuller interpretation from Raj Sahib?
There can be many views on this perplexing verse. I could say that
because the couplet was written while Faiz was in Jinnah Hospital in
Karachi, he might have felt that he was on his death bed and therefore
his couplet only reflects that aspect and has nothing to do with his
"socio-political ideals" as you proposed. Does that mean that I could
also say that you are "dead wrong" in your premise. No! It is a moot
point. You have a different opinion than mine and we can debate the
issue by means of alternate versions and possibly enhance our
understanding of it. That is all I have asked of Raj Sahib. Please be
fair minded and tell me what is wrong in my asking that?
While I enjoy a healthy debate, an altercation is of little interest
to me. If you think that I am indulging in a paralogistic argument,
please forgive my lack of comprehension and any indiscretion that I
may have committed. Thank you.
Regards,
Yogesh
Raj Kumar
> > > > > husn meiN taKhleeq ka pehloo bhi hai
> > > > > "maiN" kahaa us ne to "ham" paidaa huaa!!!!!!!!
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I see the second misra as:
> > >
> > > 'Onset of husn reveals self-realisation ("maiN / I"), especially the
> > > power to manipulate and control; that then leads to pride and 'maiN'
> > > becomes 'Ham'.'
> >
> > jahaaN tak is she'r ki baat hai, mera apna tajziya bhi kuchh aisa hi
> > hai, Sarvjit ji, --- ya'ani-k, lafz "ham" 'singular' hai aur is ke
> > ma'ani "we" ke naheeN haiN, is ke ma'ani haiN --- "an exalted I"!
> >
> > goya, jab tak to "aam log" apne aap ko "maiN" kehte the, tab tak to
> > yeh lafz munaasib tha magar jab "us haseena" ne apne aap ko "maiN"
> > kahaa to use (aur, ho sakta hai, auroN ko bhi) yooN lagaa k yeh lafz
> > naa-kaafi hai! nateejatan, yeh huaa k, us ke "husn" ki Khaatir, lafz
> > "ham" ko eejaad karna paRaa taake voh apne aap ko "maiN" ki bajaaye
> > "ham" kahe aur, aisa karne se, apni "jumla sifaat" ke saath insaaf kar
> > paaye!
> >
>
> An interesting interpretation, indeed, Raj Kumar-ji, and one that
> is as elegant as it is simple. Far more sensible than the "Husn
> refers to Eve" and the 'Eve'nt theory :) I was proposing during
> the earlier incarnation of this thread. The more I think about
> it, the more I like this interpretation over my original one.
>
>
chaliye, aap ke aur Sushil Saahib ke Khutoot se ab yeh bharam to
naheeN rahaa k yeh uqda abhi tak uqda hi hai! goya, jin jin as_haab ne
is she'r par maGhz-pachchi ki hai voh ab sabhi ke sabhi is she'r ke
markazi Khayaal par to muttafiq haiN!
rahi baat tafaaseel ki to, huzoor, un paar ziyaada baihs ki zaroorat
naheeN hai kiyooN-k ab to yihi savaal reh gayaa hai k husn ki aisi
kaun si Khusoosiyaat haiN jin ke zimn meiN lafz "maiN" naakaafi hai
aur lafz "ham" ki zaroorat hai? Sarvjit Saahib ne ise 'pride' ka saath
joRa hai aur aap ise 'sharm-o-hayaa' ke saath joRna chaahate haiN.
Irfaan Sahib ne farmaaya tha k is baat ka ta'alluq puraane zamaane
meiN to 'royalty' se tha magar aaj kal 'shurafaa' ke tarz-e-kalaam se
hai. maiN ne shuroo' hi meiN raajoN-mahaaraajoN aur navvaboN ka zikr
kiyaa tha aur saath hi malika Victoria ka naam bhi liyaa tha!
On the surface, these observations seem to be very different from one
another; in reality, however, they are different aspects of one and
the same thing that I, in my latest post, called "(husn ki) jumla
sifaat"!
Ravindra Saahib, aaKhir is duniya meiN sirf aek-aadh haseena naheeN
hai, laakhoN haiN. un meiN se beshtar ke liye lafz "ham" ka ist'emaal
ravaa hai --- magar, aisa karne ka javaaz kisi ko aek sifat se milta
hai, kisi aur ko doosri sifat se! kisi ko faKhr se, kisi ko takabbur
se, kisi ko shaan se, kisi ko shaukat se, kisi ko jamaal se, kisi ko
jalaal se, kisi ko nafaasat se, kisi ko nazaakat se, kisi ko
dilrubaaii se, kisi ko kaj-adaaii se, kisi ko dilkashi se, kisi ko
dilbari se, kisi ko mashq-e-sitam se, kisi ko nig'h-e-karam se,
vaGhaira, vaghaira.
Now that is what I call "jumla sifaat" --- and the 'sifat' you have in
mind is very much included here! :-))
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Sushil Sharma
> In a nut shell that is all there is to it. Please tell me how have I
> erred in requesting a fuller interpretation from Raj Sahib?
Yogesh Saahib,
Thanks for clarifying the matters. Off course, I respect your
opinion, and your right to present it in this discussion. I have
neither the intention nor any reason to stand between you and
Rajkumar Saahib, both of whom I respect. I just got carried
away by some sort of misunderstanding.
> There can be many views on this perplexing verse. I could say that
> because the couplet was written while Faiz was in Jinnah Hospital in
> Karachi, he might have felt that he was on his death bed and therefore
> his couplet only reflects that aspect and has nothing to do with his
> "socio-political ideals" as you proposed. Does that mean that I could
> also say that you are "dead wrong" in your premise. No! It is a moot
> point. You have a different opinion than mine and we can debate the
> issue by means of alternate versions and possibly enhance our
> understanding of it. That is all I have asked of Raj Sahib. Please be
> fair minded and tell me what is wrong in my asking that?
<my reply will be a repeat of what I wrote above>
>
> While I enjoy a healthy debate, an altercation is of little interest
> to me. If you think that I am indulging in a paralogistic argument,
> please forgive my lack of comprehension and any indiscretion that I
> may have committed. Thank you.
In fact, your point-of-view did enrich us (atlist me) in the sense
that now we know a different way of looking at the she'r, even if
some of us (myself included) do not find that point-of-view justifiable. :-)
You being elder to me (as an ALUPer and perhaps also in age), it is
me who need to tender apologies, if any.
To ease the unnecessary tension created on this topic, here is a she'r
by Waseem Barelvi, which came to my mind when I was looking for a
reference to "aakhiri shab" (though it is not used in the sense
of the "last night of one's life" here :-)
yeh miree aakhiri shab to nahiN maikhaane meiN
kaaMpte haathoN se kyoN jaam diyaa jaataa hai
and if you liked this she'r, here is the matla and another she'r
from the same ghazal
baat rone ki lage phir bhi haNsaa jaataa hai
yuN bhi haalaat se samjhauta kiyaa jaataa hai
kis adaalat meiN sunaa jaata hai daawaa unka
jin umeedoN ka galaa ghoNT diyaa jaataa hai
I hope you liked these ash'aar.
Regards,
Sushil
--