=== |
vuh tu;xm-e so;xtah the ham kih sar-sabzii nah kii ;haa.sil
milaayaa ;xaak me;N daanah nama:t ;hasrat se dihqaa;N ko
1) we were {that / such a} burnt-up seed that did not attain/'harvest' flourishingness/'green-headedness'
2) through grief/regret/longing, we mingled the farmer, like a seed, with/into the dust
nama:t : 'Likeness, similitude; manner, mode, way, custom'. (Platts p.1154)
;hasrat : 'Grief, regret, intense grief or sorrow; —longing, desire'. (Platts p.477)
FWP:
SETS
MOTIFS == 'DEAD LOVER SPEAKS'
NAMES
TERMS == METAPHORSRF's final point is worth further consideration. How indeed did a single burnt-up, useless seed cause the farmer's ruin-- cause him to be 'mingled with/into the dust' like a seed himself? Perhaps the seed was so extraordinarily promising and full of potential that the farmer became obsessed with it to the point of madness; or perhaps the seed was emblematic of a whole 'burnt-up' harvest that the farmer tried desperately but vainly to save.
In any case, the verse creates something like a double or recursive metaphor. If the speaker had said that he was a tiger, and had killed the farmer, that would be quite straightforward. But the speaker says he was a seed, and that he had killed the farmer by means of 'grief, regret, longing' [;hasrat]. To 'kill' by causing someone to die of grief is a kind of metaphor in itself, legally and morally speaking. And for a 'burnt-up seed' to have this kind of intentionality and agency requires a further layer of metaphor-- the human-turned-seed must then become a seed-turned-human. The 'seed' must become not only a conscious, morally aware being, but also a murderer-- though perhaps a reluctant or even inadvertent one, who is only recognizing after the fact what has occurred. (What did the seed know, and when did it know it?) This kind of hyper-complexity is futile; it eventually comes to sound like a particularly absurd form of casuistry. The imagery of the verse remains uncanny.