receptive human Heart, and in the active ‘spiritual conversation’ (suḥbat) or inter-
action with the Beloved that fills it. In poignant contrast – both emotionally and
spiritually–thetwinquestionsformingthesecondhalfofthisopeningverseraise
the recurrent problem of that unconscious spiritual blindness and profound ‘veil-
ing’oftheheart(line5),whichleavethecritic/plaintiff/pretender(mudda‘īofline
6)andpiouslyhopefulascetic(zāhidofline7)feelingpainfullyseparatedfromGod,
unhappilywaitingfortheimaginedfuturecomingofthedivineWine-bearer(sāqī),
anddesperatelysearchingforthepresumablyexternalcause(sabab)ofthisdifficult
separationandinterminablestateofexpectation.
Ifthefirsthalf-linerepresentsakindofimmediate,uncomplicatedspiritualcom-
munication(suḥbat)betweenḤāfiẓandeachofhisreceptivereaders,theperspective
of estrangement and longing assumed in the second half-line is much more prob-
lematic,inthattherelationshipofthequestionerandhisorherintendedaudience
assumedtherecanbeunderstoodonatleastthreedistinctlevels,eachwithverydif-
ferentmeanings.Tobeginwith,fromtheperspectiveofthespeakerofthefirsthalf-
line (whether we conceive of that voice as Ḥāfiẓ himself, or his persona of the
idealizedspiritualKnowerfamiliartohisreadersfrommanyotherghazals),thetwo
parallel questions in the second half-line are entirely ironic, perhaps even openly
mocking, since that opening speaker is well aware that he or she isnotwaiting or
expectant, and always knows (as we are told again and again in the Qur’ān and
ḥadīth) that the divineSāqīand promised Gardens arealreadywith us and at hand.
Instead, if we do assume that same opening speaker is also raising these two ques-
tions, then most charitably he can only be doing so as an initially pointed, well-
intentioned challenge to that host of deeply ‘veiled’ (lines 5–6) critics, ascetics and
hypocriticallypious‘pretenders’–familiarcharactersineachofḤāfiẓ’sspiritualdra-
mas–inquiringinwardlyastowhytheystillfindthemselveswaitingforthatsame
God whose Face, as they must paradoxically admit, we all must see ‘wherever we
turn’(2:115).Finally,wecanunderstandthesetwoquestionsasreflectingtheinner
stateofallthose‘veiled’individuals,plaintivelywonderingwhyGodstillkeepsthem
personally‘waiting’(untildeathorsomeotherfuturetime)toreappearandfulfilall
those repeated metaphysical assurances and scriptural promises – assertions which
theQur’ānitselftellinglyplacesinthepresentcontinuoustense,thoughtheyparadox-
icallyinsistonreadingthemintotheirownimaginedorwished-forfuture.
The particular word for ‘cause’ (sabab) in the second opening question here also
suggeststheunderlyingmetaphysicalissueorcontroversyshapingtheentirepoem,
since in the longstanding language of Islamic philosophy and spirituality this
technical term referred specifically to our mind’s grasp of the complex chains of
relative,secondary,spatio-temporal‘occasions’forthemanifestappearancesinthis
world:orinotherwords,totheconceptionofourdestinyasdepictedaccordingto
thedeterministicmaterialworldviewofthephilosopher–scientistsofthattime.For
Ḥāfiẓ, of course, that opening analytical perspective of the ego-intellect here is
dramatically contrasted to the spiritual Knower’s immediate perception of God as
the One and Unique Cause, the ever-renewedCreator(kardagār) at every instant,
Ḥāfiẓ’sRomanticImageryandLanguageofLove 241