S. R. Faruqi:

In jo kuchh nah dekhnā thā there's a subtle ambiguity. The not-to-be-seen [nah dekhne-vālī] thing can be the field of resurrection day [maidān-e ḥashr]; it can also be the accountability/punishment thereafter (perhaps of the beloved, who has committed so much cruelty in the world). This not-fit-to-be-seen [nah dekhne ke qābil] thing can also be life-- that is, he was compelled to live a second time, as in the following verse from the first divan:

{484,9}.

It's possible that the not-to-be-seen things might be the people of the world, for shelter from whom he had clutched the garment-hem of Death. In the verse there's a strange kind of pride/dignity, and a rejection of all those heart-pleasing ideas of life after death that have been written in religious books.

But there's also one more interesting possibility: that by the 'dream of nonexistence' might be meant not death, but rather the world of spirits-- that is, the peace of the world of spirits. Before coming into this world, spirits are in the world of nonexistence. To be born is also called 'to open the eyes'. Thus the meaning can also be that we were sleeping peacefully in the world of spirits; when we opened our eyes in this world, we were forced to endure all kinds of suffering and difficulties-- after all, why did you wake us from such a comfortable sleep? That is, we don't understand the reason for creation, when in creation there's pain and more pain.

It's true that in the idiom the meaning of the 'sleep of nonexistence' is death, not the world of spirits. But from a dictionary point of view, there's nothing to prevent it. Rather, the probability is that Mir would have intended the same meaning that he has composed in the first divan as well [{475,9}]:

hastī meñ ham ne ā kar āsūdagī nah dekhī
khultīñ nah kāsh āñkheñ ḳhvāb-e ḳhvush-e ʿadam se

[having come into existence, we saw no comfort
if only our eyes had not opened from the happy sleep/dream of nonexistence!]

FWP:

SETS == MIDPOINTS
MOTIFS == DREAMS; LIFE/DEATH
NAMES
TERMS

In what sense are we to take nah dekhnā thā ? Does it refer to something that the speaker had been forbidden to see, by the decree of God or fate? Something that he ought not to have looked at, for some personal reasons of distaste or aversion? Something that normally would be invisible, but somehow he caught an impossible glimpse? Moreover, the 'midpoint' position of jo kuchh yields two possible readings, each with subtly different implications, as shown above in the translation. Needless to say, we're left to decide all this for ourselves.

Who woke the speaker up from the ḳhvāb-e ʿadam , and to whom is he complaining? The verse gives not the smallest hint; it's left up to us readers to decide who the agent and the addressee might be.

Note for grammar fans: Interlocking archaisms here. The tīñ is a form of taʾīñ , contracted in both spelling and pronunciation into one long syllable for metrical convenience. Then, ke taʾīñ is more or less equivalent to ko . So we're left with kāhe ko , which is roughly the same as kyūñ .