246the apparently impenetrable metaphysical barrier – or so the thickly veiled critic
imagines it! – between this visible world of matter, space and time, and that
vastspiritualrealmwhoseinfiniterealitieshecanonlyimagine(asdoesthepious
ascetic/zāhidof the final line) in terms of more familiar fantasies and parallels
drawn from his experience of this lower world. But once the attentive reader
beginstorealizethatthetrulyproblematicveilsandtheir‘keeper’inquestionare
noneotherthanthebarriersofhisownego-self(nafs),ofitsprofound‘compound
ignorance’, confusions and chattering distractions, then every word of this line
takes on a radically ironic meaning – and above all, profoundly differentpractical
implicationsandconsequences.
The source and nature of the critic/pretender’s perennial illusions is further
defined and highlighted at this point by the key termnizā‘(‘quarrelling’), whose
manytellingQur’ānicusagesrepeatedlyfocusonthemultiplicityofconflictingper-
spectives and futile stratagems and plotting that characterize those who rely on
their own limited means and worldly understanding, without true spiritual insight
andinspiredguidance.ThedescriptionofthepanickedreactionofPharaohandhis
counsellors to the challenges of Moses (at 20:62), for example, also emphasizes the
intrinsicsecrecyandhiddennessofthesemurkypsychicdepthsofthenafs:‘Sothey
quarrelledamongthemselvesaboutthismatter,andtheykeptsecrettheirplotting.’
Thatinnerpsychicrealmisindeeda‘secretbehindaveil’,unknowntotheheavenly
spheres – but potentially very familiar to those who undertake the Work-path of
silenceandspiritualpurification.
Line7:Balance,SurrenderandtheDivinePerspectiveThe trueḥāfiẓ– in each of those transforming and far-reaching senses that we
exploredatthebeginningofthischapter–alreadyknowsthatthetheophanic,mir-
roringHeartisindeedalwaysfilledwiththewineofKawtharandtheSpiritatevery
instant – as is, of course, the deeper heart of the critic and ascetic as well, ‘if they
only knew’. And in the course of life each reader, each human being, has passed
back and forth between those polar states of ‘veiling’ (with its concomitant resist-
ance,dissipationandemptyimagining)andofecstaticunionandsurrender(mastī)
enough to appreciate both perspectives, to at least recognize each of the contrast-
ingvoicesandpossibilitiesthataresobeautifullyarticulatedthroughoutthecourse
ofthisghazal.Theapparenthumanchoice,then,isassimplehereattheendasitwas
inthefirsthalf-lineofthisverse:betweenwantingwhatis,theever-renewedplen-
itude of created Being; and desiring an imagined illusion, while ignoring or even
deprecatingwhatactuallyis(anditsCreator).
But to state the issue that bluntly in fact serves only to highlight our apparent
existentialhelplessnessandinabilitytoinfluenceorcarryoutthatchoiceatall:nei-
therthetrueḥāfiẓnortheveiledcriticandasceticseemto‘choose’whatisactually
giftedtoeachofthemineveryinstant.Hencetheparadox–anddeeperexistential
challenge – of the poem’s final half-line, whose question likewise seems to be
ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry