A theme similar to this, he has versified in the fifth divan [{1685,9}]:
sar-raftah sun nah mīr kā gar qaṣd ḳhvāb hai
nīndeñ uchaṭtiyāñ haiñ
sune yih kahāniyāñ
[don't listen to Mir's life-story, if your goal is sleep
sleep departs, having heard these stories]
The present verse is enjoyable for several reasons. First of all, look at ḳhvāb-lā . This is a translation of [the Persian] ḳhvāb-āvar . There are many of these Urdu expressions made by translating from Persian examples. This one is a special instance of Mir's style of courageous usage.
Let's also consider other aspects of pleasure in this verse. Between sunā thā and fasānah is the relationship of a zila. In the first line ḳhvāb means 'sleep', but in the second line it can also mean 'dream'-- especially because at that time Mir used to use ḳhvāb meaning 'sleep' as feminine.
After hearing the story, the friends' sleep might abandon them for several reasons (1) the life-story was so heart-captivating that people were unable to sleep; (2) the life-story was so interesting that people wouldn't stop listening to it; (3) the life-story was so full of good counsel that people couldn't sleep, they were all absorbed in receiving good counsel; (4) they all thought about their own affairs; (5) people stopped having dreams.
Proposed textual emendations of ḳhvāb-lā : Janab Farid Ahmad Barkati does not agree [in his dictionary] that ḳhvāb-lā has this meaning. His view is that it's really ḳhvāb lāʾe , and Mir has made it on the model of the use of jā hai in place of jāʾe hai . As a 'warrant' for jā hai he has given a number of verses by Mir, among which is this widely famous opening-verse [{1023,1}]:
jab nasīm-e saḥar udhar jā hai
ek sannāḥṭā gużar jā hai
[when the spring breeze goes that way
a single/particular/unique/excellent sinister-silence passes through]
Barkati Sahib also holds the view that constructions like ḳhvāb-lā are not found in Mir; otherwise, [Nisar Ahmad] Faruqi Sahib would certainly have given examples. Nisar Ahmad Faruqi has read ḳhvāb-zā [short for ḳhvāb-zād], but there's no justification for that.
Barkati Sahib is certainly right that there's no justification for reading ḳhvāb-zā . But the rest of his claims require scrutiny. The first point is that if Mir had wanted to say ḳhvāb lāʾe hai , then he easily could have substituted ḳhvāb lāʾe for ḳhvāb-lā hai ; and with regard to meaning, here ḳhvāb lāʾe and ḳhvāb-lā hai are entirely the same. Thus Mir had no need to [make changes to suit the meter].
The second point is that examples of jā hai meaning jāʾe hai do exist, but I know of no examples of lā hai , ā hai , khā hai , etc., meaning lāʾe hai , āʾe hai , khāʾe hai , etc.
It's true that in Mir's poetry no other translated construction like ḳhvāb-lā has been seen. But the language itself is full of such examples. Urdu-knowers have translated from Persian and made current many such constructions; and many others have come about of themselves: [a number of examples are given]. Thus no matter how strange ḳhvāb-lā may appear in its own right (and its strangeness itself is its beauty), there are also many familiar and customary phrases of the same kind.
