FWP:
SETS == FILL-IN
In his divan Ghalib only used the word mard three times: {7,1} (passion depicted as a warrior and 'seeker of men'); {7,7} (the dead Ghalib as a 'strangely free man'); and {57,7} (passion imagined as 'man-killing' wine). Apart from {7,7} with its implicit renunciation, the other two both have contexts of battle or struggle, as does the present verse, and a sense that virility or even machismo is the quality desired.
This 'manly courage' eventually halts at a 'resting-place' of some sort, where it stops and recuperates, or relaxes, or makes a stand, etc. But it only stops when it reaches a point of 'contentment' (or tranquillity, or abstinence). For the speaker to stop on false pretenses-- to stop out of mere exhaustion and weakness, not contentment-- would make him a blight or burden on this spirit ('manly courage'), or on the place (a general 'resting-place', or a faqir's hospice) where he stops. Or, if we read the i.zaafat differently, 'manly courage' itself can constitute a 'resting-place', and what he is a blight on is 'the resting-place that is manly courage'.
But it's also common in idiomatic usage for the 'neither-nor' construction to be truncated from nah yih nah vuh to yih nah vuh . How do we know the same thing isn't going on, at least as a secondary reading, in the first line? As far as I can see, we don't know. This more complex reading would set up not (1a) with its two possible reasons to stop searching (that is, either weakness or contentment), but (1b) with its three (that is, weakness, or contentment, or some other unspecified reason.
In any case, what kind of 'search' is it, and what kind of a 'resting-place' is there, and what kind of 'contentment' can one find? We don't know, and the commentators don't know either: Nazm turns a renunciation of the search into a renunciation of the world; Bekhud Dihlavi suggests a pursuit of courage itself; Bekhud Mohani proposes a search for a livelihood; Josh understands the search to be for the 'friend' or beloved (human or divine); Mihr maintains that 'manliness' means contentment in austerity. My own inclination is to link it to the kind of desperate, ardent, exhausting search envisioned in {93,3x}.
The ultimate appeal of the verse is its cryptic abstractness and undecideability. The multiple meanings of the key words (see the definitions above) permit readings that are religious or worldly, romantic or martial, specific or general, pragmatic or moral. It's another of those verses in which we have to fill in the blanks ourselves.
I always envision a takiyah-gah as like the austere 'Damascus Room' in the Met, with its red velvet sitting-cushions and bolsters:
Nazm:
That is, manly courage rests when it finds contentment, and contentment ought to be the cause for renunciation of the world-- not that the world is renounced, but only because of weakness of courage. If weakness is the cause of the renunciation of the search, then such renunciation of the search is a blight to manly courage. (82)
== Nazm page 82