For background see S. R. Faruqi's choices . For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in 4,8x . ABOUT : It's sometimes used for 'surprise', but its primary meaning is something stronger, something that freezes you in your tracks. I use 'amazement' as a good all-purpose compromise translation, but often a more accurate choice would be 'stupefaction', almost in the literal sense of experiencing something that 'stupefies', that creates a stupor. Thus the reaction of is not a little jump, a startled step back, a sudden movement. Rather, it's a profound, wordless stillness that may (in the ghazal world) last for an indefinitely long time, and that may also look like awe. It is sometimes associated with a gesture of touching a finger to the lower teeth of one's open, jaw-dropped mouth; for an example see the painting in 50,1 . On the connection between and mirrors, see 352x,4 . For a discussion of the sophisticated (and Sufistic) connotations of , see Shahab Ahmed, What is Islam? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), pp. 278-281. Thus the 'footprint', with its wide-open eye (or wide-open mouth) shape and perpetually unmoving state of helpless collapse, can be perhaps the ultimate model of , as in 53,3 and 116,8 . The mirror too is an image of amazement, as in 63,1 and 217,8x . The perpetually fixed gaze of a painted eye in a picture might also be such an image, as in 92,2 . And another such image of course can be the mystical, entranced, self-oblivious state(s) envisioned in the present verse. In 184,2 the lover finds that such 'amazement' makes effective speech impossible. In A Garden of Kashmir , as a translation for I used 'stupefaction', which also could be defended. In Persian the past participle means, literally, 'gone from the self'. (We received a related lesson about the grammar of , 'to go', in 3,4 .) Then the suffix makes 'gone-from-self-ness'. But then-- doesn't 'gone-from-self-nesses' (with the plural ending ) seem a bit over the top? Perhaps it's meant to suggest that such episodes happen repeatedly; perhaps it's meant to make us reflect on whether there are many different ways to be gone from the self. For more on such (awkwardly) pluralized abstractions, see 1,2 . The first line is a negative list-- neither A, nor B-- with no indication of whom or what those negations may apply to. Perhaps they describe the speaker/lover, or perhaps they describe the 'gone-from-self-nesses' in the second line. As so often, the decision is left entirely up to us. For more on the double reading of in the second line, see the discussion in 51,4 . graphics/selfgone.jpg