Chehel Asrar 18 - Eighteenth Ghazal

Ghazal 18

9 couplets  |  Riaz 1991, printed p. 460

اَز نَفَحاتِ قِدَم حَضْرَتِ اَسْما گُشود

az nafahāt-e qedam hazrat-e asmā goshūd

1a  With the breaths of eternity he opened the realm of the Names; [1]

وُ زِ نَسَماتِ کَرَم صورَتِ اَشْیا نُمود

o ze nasamāt-e karam sūrat-e ashyā nomūd

1b  with the breezes of generosity he revealed the forms of things.

Commentary on couplet 1

The opening presents an unnamed giver whose eternity, Names, and creative generosity identify the subject as divine. Breath and breeze make disclosure feel gentle and life-giving: the first half opens the presence of the Names, while the second brings the forms of things into view. Qedam means beginninglessness, so the image need not imply a physical breath or an event occurring before time. The Names can be understood here as divine qualities becoming knowable through their effects, with generosity already exemplifying one such quality. Hamadani’s prose offers a documented parallel by making knowledge of God depend upon grace and illumination through divine qualities. [10] The poem gives that relation a sensuous, moving form.

مُهْرِ مُحَبَّت نِهاد بَر دِلِ اَهْلِ وَفا

mohr-e mohabbat nehād bar del-e ahl-e vafā

2a  He stamped the seal of love upon the hearts of the faithful;

داغِ اِرادَت کَشِید بَر رُخِ گَبْر وُ جُهود

dāgh-e erādat kashīd bar rokh-e gabr o johūd

2b  he branded devotion upon the faces of Zoroastrian and Jew. [2]

Commentary on couplet 2

The giver marks both faithful hearts and the faces of people named through historically disparaging religious terms. Seal and brand combine belonging with the pain of attachment; love leaves an inward impression and a visible wound. Erādat can suggest will, desire, or devoted attachment, and the supplied translation emphasizes devotion. The second half extends the first half’s field of love across a communal boundary, without making the difference in naming disappear. Its inclusive force lies in attributing both marks to the same giver. This poetic embrace does not by itself establish that all doctrines are identical or all conduct equally approved. The later contrast between prophetic grace and destructive wrath keeps difference within the poem’s expansive vision.

خاکِ سَرِ کُویِ اُو شاه وُ گَدا وُ اَمِیر

khāk-e sar-e kū-ye ū shāh o gadā o amīr

3a  King, beggar, and prince are dust at the entrance to his street;

آینِهٔ رُویِ اُو کَوْن وُ مَکان وُ وُجُود

āyīne-ye rū-ye ū kown o makān o vojūd

3b  the universe, space, and existence are the mirror of his face.

Commentary on couplet 3

The beloved’s street reduces king, beggar, and prince to the same dust; the second half then enlarges the view until all existence becomes a mirror. Social grandeur collapses before the threshold, while the apparently negligible world acquires the dignity of reflecting a face. The compressed nominal clauses make both claims immediate, without narrating how either transformation occurs. Kown, makān, and vojūd accumulate the scope of the reflection: the created order, its spatial spread, and existence itself. Within the divine context established by the opening, the face suggests a presence disclosed through what exists. A mirror makes something visible while leaving a distinction between reflection and reflected source; the image therefore invites contemplation without requiring a bodily likeness for God.

سابِقِهٔ فَضْلِ اُو مُظْهِرِ نُوح وُ خَلیل

sābeqe-ye fazl-e ū mozher-e Nūh o Khalīl

4a  His timeless grace brought Noah and Abraham into view; [3]

صاعِقِهٔ قَهْرِ اُو مُهْلِکِ عاد وُ ثَمُود

sāʿeqe-ye qahr-e ū mohlek-e ʿĀd o Samūd

4b  the thunderbolt of his wrath destroyed ʿĀd and Thamūd. [4]

Commentary on couplet 4

Grace brings Noah and Abraham into view, while wrath overwhelms ʿĀd and Thamūd. The near-matching sounds sābeqe and sāʿeqe sharpen the opposition between antecedent favour and a sudden destructive stroke. The supplied mozher gives grace an active role in making the prophets manifest; it should retain its distinction from mazhar, a locus of manifestation. Qurʾān 57:26 pairs Noah with Abraham, and 4:125 identifies Abraham as God’s intimate friend. The second half closely recalls 41:13, which joins ṣāʿiqa with the names of both peoples. The surrounding passage specifies a violent wind for ʿĀd and a devastating blast for Thamūd, so the poem compresses its scriptural memory into one forceful image. [11] Generosity here coexists with judgment.

مُور وُ مَگَس سَیْرها دِیدِه دَرین دَیْرها

mūr o magas sayrhā dīde dar īn dayrhā

5a  Ants and flies have seen many journeys in these temples; [5]

مُرْغ وُ وُحُوش وُ طُیُور جُمْلِه صُفوف وُ جُنُود

morgh o vohūsh o toyūr jomle sofūf o jonūd

5b  birds, wild creatures, and winged things are all ranks and armies.

Commentary on couplet 5

The view descends from prophets and powerful peoples to ants, flies, birds, and wild creatures. Small lives have their own courses through the world, and the second half gathers animal diversity into an ordered company. The supplied reading of “journeys” and “temples” remains an interpretation of compressed wording; it supports participation in a world figured as worship, without establishing repeated lives or literal visits to religious buildings. Qurʾān 27:17 includes birds in Solomon’s armies, while 24:41 places birds with outspread wings among creation’s worshippers. These offer plausible echoes for junūd and the language of ordered ranks, although neither explains the difficult first half. [12] Creatures easily overlooked by human observers become participants in a wider order.

کاتِبِ حِکْمَت کَشِید خَطِّ حُرُوفِ حُدوث

kāteb-e hekmat kashīd khatt-e horūf-e hodūs

6a  The scribe of wisdom traced the letters of coming into being;

شِحْنِهٔ غَیْرَت بِشُسْت صورَتِ بُود وُ نَبُود

shehne-ye ghayrat beshost sūrat-e būd o nabūd

6b  the constable of jealousy washed away the image of being and nonbeing. [6]

Commentary on couplet 6

Wisdom appears as a scribe producing the letters of created existence; jealousy becomes an officer who washes the inscription away. The paired officials give disclosure and effacement equal force. Ḥudūth means coming into being, and its contrast with the opening’s beginningless eternity distinguishes the written forms from their source. Ghayrat, jealousy or protective exclusiveness, is read in the supplied note as allowing no independent rival to the One. The erasure can therefore challenge the apparent self-sufficiency of what has been inscribed. Yet “being and nonbeing” is broader than personal pride alone: even the image through which these opposites are grasped is unsettled. The verse stages a tension between manifestation and effacement without requiring a chronological destruction of the universe.

قَطْرِه بِدَرْیا شُدِه، مُطْلَقِ بِی‌جا شُدِه

qatre be-daryā shode, motlaq-e bī-jā shode

7a  The drop has entered the sea, becoming the placeless Absolute; [7]

بَحْرِ مُحِیطِ قِدَم قَیْد شُدِه دَر حُدُود

bahr-e mohīt-e qedam qayd shode dar hodūd

7b  the all-encompassing sea of eternity has been confined within bounds.

Commentary on couplet 7

The drop loses its bounds in the sea; in the answering reversal, the eternal ocean appears bounded. The supplied “placeless Absolute,” including its linking vowel, remains provisional. Its force should be retained alongside the striking claim that eternity enters limits. Hamadani’s prose offers a relevant distinction: God is beyond location and containment while nearer to the creature than its own breath. [10]

This may be read in an Akbarian sense through Qūnawī’s distinction between unlimited being and its disclosure in particular forms. He explicitly combines such manifestation with freedom from division and indwelling. [13] That comparison preserves both directions of the paradox: the finite loses its claim to separation, and the unlimited becomes manifest through limits. It neither resolves the disputed wording nor turns the poem into a claim that a human substance becomes God or that divine eternity is spatially imprisoned.

مَشْرَعِ اِدْبارِ ما پَرْدِهٔ پِنْدارِ ماست

mashraʿ-e edbār-e mā parde-ye pendār-e māst

8a  The source of our misfortune is the veil of our self-conceit;

هَرکِه اَز اِین بَنْد رَسْت، گویِ سَعادَت رُبُود

harke az īn band rast, gū-ye saʿādat robūd

8b  whoever escapes this bond wins the ball of happiness. [8]

Commentary on couplet 8

The cosmic paradox turns inward through the repeated “our”: what obstructs happiness is the veil of our own presumptuous imagining. Pendār carries the sense of conceit here, while “veil” makes it an impediment to seeing and “bond” makes it a restraint on freedom. The second half answers those images with the sudden success of a polo player seizing the ball. The prize comes through release from the obstruction. Hamadani’s prayer commentary offers a pertinent parallel: immersion in divine oneness leads to recognition of creaturely need and continued worship. [10] Read beside that passage, escaping conceit need not confer self-sufficiency; it can disclose dependence. The speaker includes himself in the condition he diagnoses.

دِید عَلایی عَیان بَر وَرَقِ کائِنات

dīd ʿAlāʾī ʿayān bar varaq-e kāʾenāt

9a  ʿAlāʾī plainly saw upon the page of creation

جُمْلِه ذَرّاتِ کَوْن پِیشِ رُخَش دَر سُجود

jomle zarrāt-e kown pīsh-e rokh-ash dar sojūd

9b  every particle of the universe prostrating before his face. [9]

Commentary on couplet 9

The closing names ʿAlāʾī as a witness reading creation’s page, where every particle appears in prostration before the divine face. The page recalls wisdom’s inscription, while the face returns to the cosmic mirror of couplet 3. What was described as an order of things is now presented as plainly seen. Qurʾān 22:18 supplies a close parallel in its account of cosmic prostration, while distinguishing among human responses; 13:15 also speaks of prostration willingly or unwillingly. [14] The poem’s comprehensive vision can thus express creation’s dependence without asserting that everyone consciously chooses devotion. Its final posture is reverence, and the signature marks the poetic witness without independently proving the ghazal’s attribution.

Understanding this ghazal

This ghazal asks how the many forms of creation can disclose one divine source, and what prevents a person from recognizing that relation. Its opening speaks about an unnamed giver rather than addressing a beloved directly. Beginningless eternity, the Names, generosity, and judgment establish the divine frame, while the street and face retain the intimacy of love poetry. The speaker initially surveys existence from a broad perspective; “our” in the penultimate couplet and ʿAlāʾī in the closing then bring the observer into the picture. Seeing the world rightly becomes inseparable from examining the self that sees.

The poem repeatedly joins manifestation to a challenge against independence. Forms appear, love marks bodies and hearts, the universe reflects a face, and wisdom writes creation. Against these acts of disclosure stand dust at the threshold, destructive wrath, jealousy’s erasure, and the drop’s loss of bounds. These images need not form a continuous account of successive cosmic events. They expose complementary pressures within the same vision: existence is meaningful as disclosure, yet no displayed form can claim the independence or completeness of its source. The inclusion of Zoroastrian and Jew broadens the reach of attachment, while the prophetic and punitive examples prevent that breadth from dissolving every distinction.

The sea couplet gives this tension its boldest expression by reversing the movement between finite and infinite. Its provisional wording warrants interpretive restraint, but its reciprocal structure deserves to remain forceful. Hamadani’s prose provides a useful frame by holding together freedom from spatial containment and profound divine nearness. [10] Qūnawī’s account of manifestation through limits without the loss of divine unlimitedness offers a further, explicitly comparative Akbarian reading. [13] Neither prose source proves the poem’s attribution or removes its grammatical uncertainty. Together they help distinguish disclosure through forms from the claim that God is a body contained within them.

The final two couplets make the vision consequential for its witness. Conceit both veils and binds; release opens a different way of reading the page already before him. The closing does not announce the disappearance of creation after the earlier erasure. It presents creation afresh as prostrating, its multiplicity gathered into a shared orientation. The insight is devotional as well as metaphysical: the world becomes legible when the observer relinquishes the claim to stand apart from its dependence.

Sources and textual notes

Reading notes

[1] 1a: Qedam means beginningless eternity; hazrat-e asmā is the divine realm or presence of the Names.

[2] 2b: Gabr and johūd are historical, often disparaging terms for Zoroastrians and Jews; the verse includes both in universal devotion.

[3] 4a: Mozher, “one that makes manifest,” is read here rather than mazhar, “place of manifestation.” Khalīl, “the intimate friend,” is Abraham.

[4] 4b: ʿĀd and Thamūd are peoples destroyed for rejecting their prophets; compare Qur'an 41:13–17.

[5] 5a: The compressed phrase “have seen journeys” is read as experiencing the world's courses; “temples” figures the world as a place of worship.

[6] 6b: Divine jealousy allows no independent rival to the One.

[7] 7a: Motlaq-e bī-jā is read as “the placeless Absolute”; this provisional interpretation and its ezafe fit the metre. The next half-line reverses the image: the boundless ocean appears within limits.

[8] 8b: “Winning the ball” is a polo image for gaining the prize.

[9] 9b: Universal prostration recalls Qur'an 22:18.

Editorial references

10. Hamadani, Dhakhīrat al-mulūk, consulted in Mohammad Umar Farooq, Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani’s Dhakiratul Muluk: An Annotation and Translation (PhD thesis, University of Kashmir, 2009), printed pp. 61–62, on transcendence, nearness, and knowledge through divine qualities; and printed p. 94, on oneness, creaturely need, and worship in prayer. These passages were checked in the English translation; the Persian wording was not independently collated.
11. Qurʾān, al-Ḥadīd 57:26, for Noah and Abraham together; al-Nisāʾ 4:125, for Abraham as khalīl; and Fuṣṣilat 41:13–17, for ʿĀd, Thamūd, and ṣāʿiqa. Verse 41:16 specifies a violent wind for ʿĀd; the poem gathers the disasters into one image.
12. Qurʾān, al-Naml 27:17, on Solomon’s armies, including birds; and al-Nūr 24:41, on creation’s praise and birds with outspread wings. These are possible echoes in couplet 5, not sources that settle its compressed first half.
13. Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī, first chapter of Miftāḥ al-ghayb, also included in al-Nuṣūṣ, translated by William C. Chittick in “Qūnawī on the One Wujūd”, Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society 49 (2011). Especially relevant are the passages distinguishing unlimited being from manifestation in determinate forms and rejecting division or indwelling. This is an Akbarian comparison, not evidence of the ghazal’s intended doctrine or attribution.
14. Qurʾān, al-Ḥajj 22:18, for cosmic prostration and differing human responses; and al-Raʿd 13:15, for prostration willingly or unwillingly. These support the distinction between universal subjection and consciously chosen devotion.

Editorial note: The supplied Riaz 1991, printed p. 460 reference and the signature ʿAlāʾī are retained. That edition and the attribution of this ghazal have not been independently verified. The supplied readings and all nine reading notes remain unchanged; in particular, the interpretation and linking vowel in motlaq-e bī-jā remain provisional.