بخش 86 - تدبیر کردن موش به چغز کی من نمی‌توانم بر تو آمدن به وقت حاجت در آب میان ما وصلتی باید کی چون من بر لب جو آیم ترا توانم خبر کردن و تو چون بر سر سوراخ موش‌خانه آیی مرا توانی خبر کردن الی آخره

This topic is endless. One day the mouse said to the frog, “O lamp of intelligence,

At times I wish to talk with you in secret, and you are gambolling in the water.

I am on the river-bank, crying aloud for you, (but) you in the water do not hear the wailing of lovers.

(When we meet) at this appointed time, O brave (frog), I never become weary of conversing with you.”

The (ritual) prayer is five times (daily), but the guide for lovers is (the Verse), (they who are) in prayer continually.

The wine-headache that is in those heads is not relieved by five (times) nor by five hundred thousand.

“Visit once a week” is not the ration for lovers; the soul of the sincere (lovers) has an intense craving to drink.

“Visit once a week” is not the ration for (those) fishes, since they feel no spiritual joy without the Sea.

Notwithstanding the crop-sickness of the fishes, the water of this Sea, which is a tremendous place, is but a single draught (too little to satisfy them).

To the lover one moment of separation is as a year; to him a (whole) year's uninterrupted union is a (fleeting) fancy.

Love craves to drink and seeks him who craves to drink: this (Love) and that (lover) are at each other's heels, like Day and Night.

Day is in love with Night and has lost control of itself; when you look (inwardly), (you will see that) Night is (even) more in love with it.

Never for one instant do they cease from seeking; never for one moment do they cease from pursuing each other.

This one has caught the foot of that one, and that one the ear of this one: this one is distraught with that one, and that one is beside itself for this one.

In the heart of the beloved the lover is all: Wámiq is always in the heart of ‘Adhrá.

In the lover's heart is naught but the beloved: there is nothing to separate and divide them.

These two bells are on one camel: how, then, in regard to these twain should (the injunction), “Visit once a week,” be admissible?

Did any one (ever) pay recurring visits to himself? Was any one (ever) a companion to himself at regular intervals?

That (of which I speak) is not the (sort of) oneness that reason apprehends: the apprehension of this (oneness) depends on a man's dying (to self);

And if it were possible to perceive this (oneness) by means of reason, wherefore should self-violence have become a duty?

How, with such (infinite) mercy as He hath, would the King of intellect say unnecessarily “Kill thyself”?