MIRZA GHALIB AND THE MESSAGE OF UPANISHADS..

                                                                                

 

 

 

MIRZA GHALIB AND THE MESSAGE OF VEDANTA / UPANISHADS

 

Mirza Ghalib’s world is vast, and one cannot fit him into any single category of issue or subject. In his ghazals, he carries not only a unique intensity of emotion but also a perfection of form and a deep feeling for the beauty of the world. Very consciously, he experiences himself as part of the cosmos, which he attempts to touch and understand through poetry.

Undoubtedly, many couplets of Ghalib reveal striking resonances with the core insights of Vedanta and the Upanishads. There is no authenticated source to verify whether Ghalib ever learned Sanskrit or read the Upanishads in Persian translation. How he came so close to the philosophical essence of Vedanta remains an intriguing mystery worthy of serious research.

 Upanishads say that this world is empirical reality ( Maaya ) and not absolute reality ( Brahman ) . But Brahman is the cause of this universe. The world, thus, is something like an unreal perception of the viewer. An illusion not because it does not exist, but because it is not what it appears to be all the time. From an absolute perspective, the material universe is a temporary creation. Upanishads assert that the mind has the power to perceive the world as it is, as well as fabricate the world as it wants to perceive it. Mind is a means to see the world, but it is prone to flaws. In this Ontological quest, man has to make a serious attempt to realise the "true reality ( Brahman ) behind perceived reality ( Maaya )". That Brahman has no attributes or characteristics. German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, in his book " Die Welt" ( in one specific   passage on the Vedantic Concept of Maaya  )  writes :-

“It is Maya, the veil of deception, which blinds the eyes of mortals and makes them behold a world of which they cannot say that it is or that it is not: for it is like a dream; it is like the sunshine on the sand which the traveler from afar takes to be water; or the stray piece of rope he takes for a snake.”

The Upanishads were translated from Persian into French and, later, Latin by Anquetil Duperron. Schopenhauer got hold of a Latin translation of a Persian translation of The Upanishads. Schopenhauer's book "The World as Will and Representation" brings forth the message of the Upanishads. 

Dara Shikoh's translation of the Upanishads into Persian played a very significant role in attracting the West to the wisdom of the Upanishads. It began with France.  In 1671, Francis Bernier, a French traveller, took a copy of the  Persian translation to France and got it translated into French. Bernier was briefly personal physician to Prince Dara Shikoh (The eldest son of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan), and after Dara Shikoh was killed, he became physician to  Aurangzeb. He stayed in India for about 12 years. He met so many Persian and Sanskrit scholars of India . While leaving India, he took with him loads of  Sanskrit and Persian Manuscripts/ Books......................... Victor Cousin (1792-1867  ), the reputed  French Philosopher also wrote  that Vedanta and the philosophy of the Upanishads are the highest philosophy that mankind has ever produced. ..............................Upanishads were widely read in France by many French philosophers of the 20th century. This long list includes Jean Grenier, André Malraux and Albert Camus.

 

It is well established that Ghalib was deeply influenced by the Persian poet Mirza Abdul Qadir Bedil of the Sabk-e-Hindi tradition. Bedil studied ancient Indian philosophers extensively; the influence of the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna is evident in his poetry. Bedil was also influenced by the Advaita philosophy of Adi Shankara. This may well explain the Vedantic undertones discernible in Ghalib’s verse.

Did Ghalib read Dara Shikoh’s Persian translation of the Upanishads? There is no firm evidence. Yet Dara Shikoh, a devoted seeker of spiritual unity, commissioned the translation of fifty-two Upanishads into Persian under the title Sirr-e-Akbar in 1657. He also arranged Persian translations of the Bhagavad Gita and the Yoga Vasistha. In his foreword to Sirr-e-Akbar, he wrote that the reader who studies it sincerely, abandoning prejudice, shall become fearless, imperishable, and eternally liberated.

 As a poet of humanity, Ghalib transcends sectarian boundaries. His love may be sensuous, yet it rests upon idealism and self-surrender. His poetry frees the mind while carving its path through the heart. His inquisitive temperament is evident in his cosmic questioning:

 

“Sabz o Gul kahaan se aaye hain,

Abr kya cheez hai, havaa kya hai?”

 

(Where have these flowers and greenery come from?

What are these clouds?

What is the secret of the air?)

 

Even in romantic expression, he interrogates reality:

“Ye pari chehra log kaise hain,

Ghamza o ishva o adaa kya hai?”

 

(What are these fairy-faced beings?

What are these gestures and graces?)

 

Dr Gopi Chand Narang noted that Bedil possessed and studied a Persian translation of Yoga Vasistha, which deeply influenced his thought. Yoga Vasistha, consisting of approximately 29,000 verses across six books, presents a philosophical dialogue between Sage Vasistha and Sri Rama. It unfolds profound teachings concerning the mind, Maya, Brahman, non-duality, and liberation. It emphasises four essential qualities: Samo (quietude of mind), Vichara (inquiry), Santosha (contentment), and Satsang (company of the wise). True happiness, it teaches, resides in one’s own nature beyond pain and pleasure.

Historically, even Sultan Zain-ul-Abdin (Budshah) of Kashmir encouraged the reading of Yoga Vasistha in his court through the scholar Srivara. Such currents reveal a long Indo-Persian engagement with non-dual thought. Like Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara before them, Ghalib and Bedil grappled with the mystery of reality.

Ghalib as Metaphysical Thinker

To confine Ghalib to romantic lyricism is to overlook the philosophical depth of his poetic consciousness. Beneath the sensuous surface of the ghazal lies a mind preoccupied with existence, illusion, selfhood, temporality, death, and ultimate reality.

The Upanishads ask: What is the Self? What is ultimate reality? What is the relation between multiplicity and unity? Ghalib asks poetically:

 

“Jab ki tum bin koi nahin maujood,

Phir yeh hungama ae Khuda kya hai?”

 

(When none exists but You, what then is this tumult, O God?)

 

Here lies the central metaphysical paradox of Advaita Vedanta: if ultimate reality is One, how does multiplicity appear? Advaita distinguishes between Paramarthika satya (absolute reality) and Vyavaharika satya (empirical reality). The world is neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal; it is mithya — dependent appearance born of Maya. Ghalib expresses this ontological suspicion:

 

“Hasti ke mat fareb mein aa jaaiyo ‘Asad’,

Aalam tamaam halqa-e-daam-e-khayaal hai.”

 

(Do not be deceived by existence, O Asad;

The world is but a snare of imagination.)

 

This parallels the Upanishadic teaching that name and form (nama-rupa) veil underlying unity. The Chandogya Upanishad compares multiplicity to ornaments fashioned from gold — ultimately nothing but gold. Ghalib deepens this insight:

 

“Juz naam nahin soorat-e-aalam mujhe manzoor,

Juz wahm nahin hasti-e-ashiya mere aage.”

 

(The forms of the world are nothing but names;

The existence of things is mere illusion.)

 

Consciousness and Ego Dissolution

 

One of Ghalib’s most profound couplets states:

 

“Hum wahan hain jahan se humko bhi

Kuchh hamari khabar nahin aati.”

 

(I am at such a station from where

even I receive no news of myself.)

 

The Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya — the fourth state of consciousness — beyond subject and object, beyond waking and dreaming. Ghalib evokes precisely such phenomenological dissolution. The observer collapses; the ego fades.

 

Witnesshood and Action

The Bhagavad Gita teaches that one must act without attachment to results and recognise the immortality of the Self. Ghalib approaches this stance:

 

“Hoon main bhi tamaashaai nairang-e-tamanna,

Matlab nahin kuchh is se ke matlab hi bar aave.”

 

(I too am a spectator of the spectacle of desire;

it matters little whether it achieves its aim.)

 

Here he gestures toward sakshi-bhava — witness consciousness — though he never abandons emotional tension.

Death, Knowledge, and Liberation

In the Katha Upanishad, Nachiketa seeks knowledge of what survives death. Yama teaches that the Self is unborn and undying; ignorance, not embodiment, binds the soul. Ghalib writes:

 

“Main ne chaaha tha ki andoh-e-vafā se chhūṭūñ,

Vo sitamgar mere marne pe bhī rāzī na huā.”

 

(I wished to be freed from sorrow through death,

Yet even death did not suffice.)

 

Here, death appears as an imagined escape. The Upanishadic teaching counters: liberation comes not from extinction but realisation.

 

Impermanence and Equanimity

Ghalib observes transience:

 

“Hai sa’adgi-e-zehn tamanna-e-tamaasha,

Jaaye ke ‘Asad’ rang-e-chaman baakhtani hai.”

 

(Such is the naïve longing of the mind for spectacle,
Go, Asad, for the garden’s colour is destined to fade.

 

The  Bhagwad Gita similarly teaches that pleasure and pain are transient. Familiarity with suffering reduces its tyranny:

 

“Ranj se khugar hua insaan to mit jaata hai ranj,

Mushkilein mujh par padi itni ke aasaan ho gayeen.”

 

(When a person grows accustomed to sorrow, sorrow itself disappears;
So many hardships befell me that they became easy.)

 

Love and Non-Duality

 

“Mohabbat mein nahin hai farq jeene aur marne ka…”

(In love, there is no difference between living and dying.)

When duality dissolves, fear dissolves, an insight found both in Vedanta and in Ghalib’s metaphysics of love.

Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna's Emptiness in Ghalib's Poetry

Nagarjuna’s doctrine of Emptiness (Śūnyatā) proposes that all phenomena are empty of inherent, independent existence. Nothing possesses svabhāva — self-subsisting essence. Reality arises only through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). What appears solid dissolves under philosophical scrutiny.

In Mirza Ghalib’s poetry, a similar destabilisation of existence repeatedly emerges. He questions the substantiality of the world. He undermines the certainty of identity. He treats form as fragile and presence as provisional. When Ghalib writes that the world is a “daam-e-khayaal” (a snare of imagination), he gestures toward constructedness rather than intrinsic being. This parallels Nagarjuna’s assertion that phenomena exist only conventionally. Ghalib’s suspicion of “Hasti” (existence) echoes the Madhyamaka critique. He refuses to grant ultimate solidity to appearances. Multiplicity trembles before inquiry. Nagarjuna rejects both eternalism and nihilism. Emptiness is not non-existence; it is relational existence. Likewise, Ghalib does not deny the world; he questions its foundations. In verses where the self loses awareness of itself, identity appears fluid rather than fixed. This resonates with the non-essentialist view of self in Madhyamaka. Ghalib’s metaphysical astonishment embodies philosophical deconstruction. He dismantles without preaching doctrine. He destabilises without collapsing into denial. Where Nagarjuna employs dialectics, Ghalib uses metaphor. Where Madhyamaka argues, Ghalib wonders. Yet in both, existence is empty of permanence, and inquiry becomes the path beyond illusion.

 Western Parallels

Arthur Schopenhauer described the world as representation, shaped by consciousness, echoing Ghalib’s “daam-e-khayaal.” Albert Camus saw absurdity in the tension between longing and silence. Jean-Paul Sartre denied metaphysical unity. Ghalib stands uniquely between metaphysical affirmation and existential questioning, interrogating multiplicity while presupposing unity.

Conclusion: Ghalib as Poet of Being

Mirza Ghalib emerges as one of the great poetic interrogators of ultimate reality. Without constructing doctrine, he articulates experiential non-duality. Without denying the world, he destabilises it. Without asserting certainty, he gestures toward it. He does not declare that the One alone is real; he asks why multiplicity exists. And so his question remains luminous:

 

If the One alone exists,

What then is this tumult?

( Avtar Mota )

 

 
CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.