FWP:
As Josh observes, if the lover is sufficiently wretched-looking, wasted, and visibly suffering, then what need of words to describe his plight? And as the other commentators note, he has found a rhetorically clever way to say something without saying it, by telling himself not to say it, and identifying exactly what it is that he's not to say. Or rather, not to say repeatedly [bār bār], since perhaps it would be permissible to say it once (even though it shouldn't be necessary to say it all, since it's manifest anyway).
The person to whom he's not to say it is 'His Excellency'--
literally, 'the Presence' [ḥuẓūr]-- a title
of great respect used for a superior in rank, who is naturally addressed in
the plural of respect [un par]. By contrast, the poet
is addressed with the intimate tū , either because he's
talking privately to himself, or else because someone else (a friend? a courtier
in His Excellency's service?) is addressing him in a patronizing manner, politely
but firmly requiring him to observe proper courtly etiquette.
Nazm:
In this verse is the verbal device that he's expressed his state in such a way that it's as if he hasn't said anything. And this ought to be counted among the verbal devices of meaning [maʿnavī]. (55)
== Nazm page 55