S. R. Faruqi:

The first line is a superb example of 'list-making'. 'Outward beauty' can mean 'good treatment', as well as 'external beauty'. Then, sivaa-e also has two meanings, and they're opposite to each other. That is, in addition to 'outward beauty' all these things too are there. Or again, there's in fact no 'outward beauty' (that is, the beloved is not beautiful); otherwise, there's everything else.

He's composed a very interesting verse, and its tone too is ambiguous. It doesn't become clear whether he's complaining, or praising. In other places he has expressed this theme with full detail, with the result that the charm has become less. From the second divan [{905,8}]:

rang aur buu to dilkash-o-dilchasp hai;N kamaal
lekin hazaar ;haif kih gul me;N vafaa nahii;N

[color and scent are heart-attracting and heart-grasping, perfectly
but a thousand pities that in the rose there's no faithfulness]

From the third divan [{1192,4}]:

naaz-o-andaaz-o-adaa ((ishvah-o-a;Gmaa.z-o-;hayaa
aab-o-gil me;N tire sab kuchh hai yihii pyaar nahii;N

[airs and graces and style, sidelong glances and winks and modesty
in your elements is everything-- only/emphatically this love is not there]

To some extent, this theme has been borrowed from [the Persian of] Hafiz:

'The heart-comforter has everything, but
Alas, that she doesn't have faithfulness toward me!'

Mir's sarcastic ambiguity gives him superiority over Hafiz.

FWP:

SETS == A,B; LISTS; MULTIVALENT WORDS
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS == AMBIGUITY

The first line is, as SRF notes, a classic 'list'. What's really intriguing about this list is its mixture of 'inward' and 'outward' elements. A list of objectively measurable 'outward' beauties could include eyes, lips, curls, clothing, hennaed feet, etc.; the poet could easily make it as long as he wanted. But that's not at all what we have here. Every one of the items in the first line involves personal subjectivity and active agency: they are all aspects of flirtatious intention and deliberately charming self-presentation. So are they to be construed as features of 'outward' beauty alone, or do they show aspects of 'inward' beauty-- or lack of it-- as well?

For what is 'inward' beauty anyway? All we know about it is that many such beauties are found 'within the friend/beloved'. These could be general moral beauties of character (she is kind, friendly, generous, honest, etc.). Or they could be the kind of inner qualities specifically desired by the lover (love, concern, faithfulness).

The outward/inward ambiguity is enhanced by the wonderful multivalence of sivaa-e (see the definition above), which can mean (permutations of) either 'in addition to' or 'except for'. And :zaahir too contributes to the effect: since its range of meanings extends to 'apparent, ostensible' (see the definition above), so that it can suggest the possibility of hypocrisy, fakery, fraud. So we really can't tell whether the beloved has inward beauties in addition to outward beauty (she's got everything), or inward beauties but no outward beauty (she's plain but has a heart of gold).

So what does the first line list?

=desirable kinds of mostly outward beauty that the beloved has?
=desirable kinds of mostly outward beauty that the beloved doesn't have?
=undesirable, meretricious kinds of outward beauty that the beloved doesn't have?
=desirable kinds of somewhat inward beauty (showing romantic intentions) that the beloved has?

We thus get a set of puzzle pieces, and have to put them together for ourselves.