FWP:
SETS == GRANDIOSITY; MUSHAIRAH
SHAME/HONOR: {3,5}
I was initially surprised by Faruqi's contention that the 'he' can't be God, because I'd taken it that way without the slightest hesitation, just as the commentators had. I haven't given Faruqi's detailed account of the idiomatic examples that support his claim; his full commentary is (in this case as in so many others) well worth reading in the original.
In any case, to me the more fascinating line is the second. From the first line we get an impression of lavishness, grandiloquence, a donor highly content with his/her generosity-- a one-sided social transaction to which the response should be an overjoyed gratitude. When a highly-placed, well-meaning benefactor, whether human or divine, gives what s/he quite plausibly thinks is a lavish gift-- well, isn't it only proper that a courteous, well-bred recipient should accept it gratefully, rather than vulgarly, greedily arguing about the nature of the gift, or demanding more?
But then in the second line we learn that the well-meaning benefactor has unknowingly given a clumsy, inadequate, quite unsuitable gift-- one that we'd never have considered sufficient in any case, and perhaps one that (as Nazm claims) we didn't even want at all. Thus we are forced to show grace under pressure-- we must act pleased and grateful, while suppressing all signs of our disappointment and pain. Our frustration is all the greater because courtesy requires us, now that we've received such an ostensibly lavish gift, to make no further requests.
Thus we are the ones who are the real benefactors. To avoid hurting the donor's feelings, to avoid a shameful appearance of vulgarity and greed, we suppress our true feelings and accept forever, irrevocably, an inadequate gift that we don't want, knowing that it precludes forever any chance of our even asking for-- much less receiving-- a gift (if any) that we really do want. We are the gracious ones, and the giver is the one receiving our grace.
How deftly, economically, and inconspicuously the second line turns the first one on its head! And how proper, too, for a classic mushairah verse like this one.
On samajhnaa as 'to consider', see {90,3}.
For an even more wonderfully extravagant verse that definitely does apply to God, see {4,8x}.
Note for grammar fans: On the translation of rahaa as 'would remain', see {35,9}.
Hali:
It's an expression of the loftiness of his spirits and, with that, his refinement of temperament. That is to say, if I took both worlds and remained silent, the reason is not that I am content with them; rather, I felt shame at asking for more and insisting, so I chose silence.
==Urdu text: Yadgar-e Ghalib, p. 150