parrot and the greengrocer

greengrocer & the parrot

in this text the interpreter has tried to transfer Rumi's tone and sense of writing perfectly.

in the very first lines the interpreterhas used past tense (was,came,etc.) to take the reader to the space that Molana wanted to produce.

would have been broken in the seventh paragraph represent great continious regret green grocer was feeling andit make the reader feel it too.the (would begin to speak )made me feel longing,desire and sorrow so strongly.

on the part that dervish begin to give examples to the parrot the translator uses past form of the verblike drank,ate;etc.but it made more sense if it would be in present(from my point of view) i think by using past form the power of Molana's speech is somehow lost.

when the poet invite us to think about same sources and different outcomes, the tense of the speech changes into present and i think this makes the reader feel the flow of these facts in his daily life.

by using the imperative verb *consider* he made all the readers feel this stream of truth in allaspects of nature and human life also .the tone is so strong that few people can refuse to obey.this command is inviting enough to follow.

Molana in his remarks especially the part about the believer,victory and defeat uses a very strong tone as if he has no doubt in what he believes and he transfers this belief and certainity to the reader too. what interpreter did in this part is remarkable because he could transfer this tone and sense completely.

considering words and sentences in the last three paragraph the words will (will never) and shall(future tense) make me feel some confinemts and impossibilities. i feel this never has more negative power than other nevers.

at the end i want to say that i like this text very much because it is very much our lives and it showed me the measures and borders and barriers i have in my life and it drew my attention to the imortant things in life that i passed them by without an accurate look before.

طوطی و بقال

I've written some points in languages as far as I've perceived acording to the number of lines
but not about the purpose of the text although it was too impressive and bring so many questions to the mind.In general Molana's language is so gentle and intersting that solve you in it.
بود بقالی و وی را طوطیی
1-Nicolson wrote'' had '' but Molana has given the sound of continious to his tense with adding a ی to the parrot
در خطاب آدمی ناطق بدی در نوای طوطیان حاذق بدی
3-Nicolson is successfull in having a past image in present like
Molana.
از سوی خانه بیامد خواجه اش بر دکان بنشست فارغ خواجه وش
5-Nicolson has used seated instead of sit to show the atmospher of respect in poetry.

8-Molana has said می and Nicolson showed it with ing
دست من بشکسته بودی ان زمان چون زدم من بر ان خوش زبان
9-Molana has used بودی to show continius plus past perfect but Nicolson has said it in passive to bring the same feeling
10-می and ing in both sentences have the same feeling
11-we have'' بنشسته بودی ''and ''was seated'' which does'nt show the sense and tru meaning
می نمود ان مرغ راهر گون شگفت تا که باشد کاندر اید او به گفت
12-in the first part می and ing match eachother but in second part کاندر آید به گفت and ''to speak''dont and it dos'nt show the process of action.
13-we have می گذشت and passed which dosnt cope although he has used meanwhile to have the meaning in it but sound is diffrent
14-اندر گفت آمد has changed to'' began to talk'' which has a different sound
15-we have آمیختی and Nicolson has showed it in passive'' were mixed''
16-خنده آمد is more beautiful than just ''laughed''

18-Nicolson has seen شد a fact and has used ''is'' instead
هر دو نی خوردند از یک ابخور این یکی خالی و ان بر از شکر
24-molavi's prefered not to use verb to have the permanent meaning and Nicolson has followed him
25-no deffrence in tense but Nicolson has seen different meaning in tow similar ''بین''
Simin Davoodi Malek

In my idea,comparison basically is not good act because actually first comparison has done by evil .he was the one who compared himself with Adams.God has created us by different capacities which are unique.so comparison is not easy act because we are not in a position to compare people. the other thing is that alyhough some people are physically similar to each other .this does not mean the same functional capacities because our behavior arise of our inner capacities that are influenced by purificaton,refining,nurture and training.
so I think comparison can be done by a person who is aware of potential and actual capacities.
In my opinion Molana is one of those people who could reach to this مقام عرفانی by the use of purification,refining,nurture and training.
Nicholson has used simple in some parts of story to show that this event is alive and can happen to all of us all the times.(this is exactly تکرار تاریخ which was said by philosiphers).
The way of writing, speaking is very important because we have two kinds of translation
معنی گرایانه و تحت اللفظی and each of them has special fans. the تحت اللفظی group believes in keeping the meaning same as original text (word by word)
but the second group believes in transferring concepts (مفاهیم برداشت شده )without considering the words.So Nicholson used the best way for transferring the information by the use of these methods).

The Greengrocer And The Parrot

Starting the story by using an allegory such as parrot has given life to it and transfers this life to the reader as I myself feel that I'm living in the middle of the story and watching the greengrocer and the parrot nearly. Indeed, the first part of the story has pulled me inside it. At the beginning I understood that Molana has mentioned some qualities of human indirectly:

1.Being mad at something that has frustrated him(human) such as parrot's carelessness in breaking the bottle.
2.Being sorry about his hasty madness and reaction.
3.Trying to compensate his mistakes by for example distributing gifts.

I sometimes have these features, too. So this part has reminded me what negative features that I should correct are inside of me. Thank you Molana for this!
Then Molana puts the parrot the allegory of simple-minded people who compare the holy people's actions to theirs because they think both groups are human so all the actions and reasons are similar to each other. But Molana makes it clear by telling the differences exist ( are real) in the nature.

كافران اندر مري بوزينه طبع ، آفتي آمد درون سينه طبع

هرچه مردم مي كنند بوزينه هم ، آن كند كز مرد بيند دم به دم

This part may seem ridiculous but believe that it's true. We ourselves use this expression:
Imitation is the monkey's action and monkey is a kind of animal!
So the infidels are like animals (monkey, ape, parrot) because they think their actions are as correct and good as holy people! As parrot thought the bald-headed man was like itself.

Chess = Life White # Black Good # Bad => White = Good Black = Bad
Do you believe the above chart? Most of us think that this relation is correct, but I say it's not. Why? Because black itself isn't bad ( I mean it's essence isn't bad) it can become good and win or become bad and lose, so here we can say Victory # Defeat. Can you say black-skinned people are bad and white-skinned people are good? Of course no. Because both groups are from one spirit.

نام او محبوب از ذات وي است ، نام اين مبغوض از آفات وي است

I perceived this part like this:
The good name of mumin refers to his fair essence (I call it فطرت خداجو) means his existence is from God so all the bad things are rejected from him. But the bad name of infidel refers to his bad actions that has darkened his fair essence. Both groups go back to their origin (God) and will be called to account because God has given human the power of thought and option to choose his way (to become like animal or to become ...)

This story was a flick for me where I am really. Of course I don't want to be like parrot and I don't say I'm empty of its bad features, but I like to try the experience of becoming (...) and come out of the framework of (is) by rejecting the piece of rubbish which has made me forget my place!

The Story of Our wOrld & the Greengrocer & the Parrot:

The story of the greengrocer and the parrot with all its oppositions and comparisons,
IS ( the wor[L]d of Reality ) just like our wOrld with all its oppositions. I mean we can see the wOrld's oppositions in these Molana's words. But what are the comparison`s usages? In my opinion, sometimes COMPARISON can be useful. But when?
When two things that we are comparing, are from one type. For example Molana says that:
" Both reeds drank from the same water-source, (but) this one is empty and that one (full of) sugar." Then this kind of comparison will have positive results.
Comparison is an natural blessing and is born with every person.
When a baby is born, he is compared with his parents for his likeness to them. when he is growing up, he compares himself with others. When he doesn’t pay attention to his parent's advices, they compare him with his friends, his cousin and so on. This kind of comparison will have negative results.
Even if you don’t compare sb/sth, people surely will compare you!!!!!
Molana says that we should avoid of childish comparisons: " Don’t measure the action of holy man by(the analogy of) yourself, though shér(lion) and shir(milk) are similar in writing."

As a result we shouldn't deceive ourselves with using incorrect Comparisons for being closed to the God.

Posted by: SepideH Gheytasi

kaare paakaan ra ghiaas az khod magir!Eventualy noway for mey to see the power-makin part for us to grow!:( so numb,so dumb,no feelin to make me talk about it at all!:(()

طوطي و بقال

at first when you read it,you don't feel that it's for long time ago.i think one of it's reasons is that MOLANA is playing with the past tense(sometimes simple past,sometimes past progressive & ....).He uses beautiful structures like-he was seated-to show a very important and strong position.the ing mood is another reason to make it alive and everlasting.Another point is that when you don't talk for someday and suddenly start talking you screech ( means shout with an unclear voice) and both Molana and Nicolson have paid attention to these points and it shows their master.Everyone's analogy is measuring the action of others.Before starting the analysis we know what Molana is going to say.How have we got this point?Isn't it a kind of معرفت that we all have.How do we have this kind of marefat and from where?According to Nicolson's wordsمعرفوت به سكوت نزديكتر است تا به سخن.In the second part when Molana compares different kinds of species he uses simple present and it means it's a fact and a nonstop event .Have you ever asked yourself why it is like this?I mean the same action but different resctions.Like quite different children from the same parents? WHY?I think one of the important roles is our inside sound.But where does this inside sound come from?But another question arises that what makes a person holy and the other an evil? I call some words like hypocrite,energetic words?do you know why?because as here is said when you call someone such words that guy becomes filled with fire and that means it transforms negative energy and vice_versa .But how some persons like Molana can be neutral in front of these energetic words?Can you remember our pre_university book(two guys shouting and contending,Molana told one of them:هرچه ميخواهي به من بگو كه اگر هزار گويي يكي نشنوي .What has happend to a man like Molana who can act like this and cab be calm toward these kinds of tastes of HELL?IS HISS INSIDE SOUND DIFFERENT?BUTT AGAIN HE IS ONE OF US..