The following essay grew out of long conversations, quiet questions, and a deepening sense that some Mongolian words—like “setgel”—resist easy translation. What follows is a reflective attempt to trace how this term moves through Mongolian Buddhist thought and poetry, and why letting it remain open may be more faithful than rendering it fixed.

_________________________________________________

Translation is always an interpretation into another culture.

_________________________________________________

Translating Mongolian doha—with its intimate weave of devotional insight, ethical subtlety, and poetic economy—requires not only linguistic care but a deep attentiveness to underlying worldviews. Many of the most resonant terms in these verses carry rich, culturally embedded meanings that do not map neatly onto English equivalents.

This is particularly evident when it comes to rendering words like setgel, süns, or am’, which speak to modes of consciousness, vitality, and moral presence in ways that are distinctly shaped by Mongolian Buddhist cosmology. Among the most persistent challenges is the translation of such terms into English without defaulting to the word “soul”—a concept which, while familiar to many readers, carries theological assumptions that risk obscuring the Buddhist understanding of impermanence, non-self, and interdependent becoming. What follows is a reflection on this translation problem, and how scholars and translators are working to meet it with both philosophical precision and poetic sensitivity.

In the translation of Mongolian doha and other forms of devotional Buddhist writing, the use of the English term soul is both philosophically misleading and epistemologically imprecise. Though seemingly close to terms such as setgel (heart-mind), süns (spirit, life-force), or am’ (breath, vitality), the English soul brings with it a legacy of Judeo-Christian metaphysics—a belief in an eternal, indivisible essence of personhood—that conflicts with the core Buddhist principles of impermanence, non-self (anātman), and interdependent origination.

Contemporary scholars working on Inner Asian Buddhist traditions—especially those attentive to the specificity of Mongolian language and lifeways—have stressed this ontological mismatch. Angela Sumegi (2013, pp. 124–126) warns that the term soul imports assumptions of permanence and autonomy that are foreign to Buddhist understandings of consciousness as ethically conditioned and causally embedded. Instead, Mongolian Buddhist cosmology describes a pluralistic and layered model of personhood, where consciousness is not a fixed inner core but a relational process marked by karmic imprints, emotional intentionality, and ethical responsiveness.

Stephen Batchelor (2015, p. 39) supports this view, proposing “mindstream” or “mental continuum” as more faithful translations of süns and related terms, since these suggest the ongoing, karmically informed flow of awareness rather than an immortal self. He emphasizes that Buddhist notions of rebirth, intention, and mental causality speak not of a soul but of a consciousness that is constantly in motion—relational, imprinted, and always open to transformation.

_________________________

Are We Translating or Reframing?

Roger Jackson (2024) observes in his study of the Saraha doha corpus that Mongolian translators often avoid the word soul entirely, preferring language that communicates ethical continuity and affective recognition without making claims to essential identity. He notes that using soul risks flattening the poetic and metaphysical nuance that is central to doha as a genre.

Thomas Schneider (2022, pp. 8–9), writing on esoteric Buddhist poetics, cautions that even seemingly simple terms like setgel should not be rendered too quickly into Western categories. In Mongolian devotional texts, setgel functions not as a container of identity, but as a subtle field of affective knowing—a site where memory, compassion, vow, and presence converge. Soul, by contrast, collapses this complexity into a singular metaphysical object, potentially erasing the layered ambiguity so central to Buddhist soteriology.

For these reasons, from what I can work out, translators seem to now favour more precise and culturally sensitive alternatives, depending on context:

(a) Setgel may be rendered as heartmind, capturing its ethical and emotional depth.

(b) Süns is often translated as consciousness, life-force, or mindstream, especially in karmic or rebirth-related contexts.

(c) Am’ (breath, vitality) might be translated as vitality or breath of awareness, particularly in poetic works.

This last phrase,”breath of awareness” is yet another attempt (my own) to render and convey a poetically suggestive but ontologically cautious alternative, that could be useful in devotional poetry. From my perspective, it gestures toward continuity, presence, and ethical intention without implying a metaphysical self. In texts where mood, relationship, and resonance matter as much as doctrinal precision, this kind of phrasing allows meaning to unfold subtly, in harmony with the Mongolian Buddhist sensibility that favours implication over declaration. What do you think? How does it sit with others in terms of Mongolian to English language translation?

_________________________

What Shapes Our Attention?

Here I think its important to note that in recent decades, the concept of awareness has gained traction across secular domains in the West, particularly in clinical and educational contexts. However, its adoption has often involved an abstraction from the ethical and philosophical frameworks in which it is traditionally embedded within Buddhist practice. In many cases, awareness becomes a neutral cognitive tool, stripped of its deeper relational and moral contexts.

Stephen Batchelor (2021, p. 212) has contributed to efforts to re-situate mindfulness within a broader ethical frame. He writes, “mindfulness, concentration and wisdom grow and mature on the ground of ethics,” insisting that attention alone is insufficient without moral sensitivity and shared responsibility. This Tibetan-centric idea resonates with Mongolian Buddhist understandings, where setgel and süns already imply an ethically inflected consciousness. From a Mongolian socio-cultural perspective,

Awareness is not isolated introspection but a practice shaped by karmic relationships, ancestral memory, and communal obligation. Mongolian Buddhism reminds us that mindfulness is relational—something shaped with others, through history and moral choice.

Scholars such as Sumegi (2013), Schneider (2022), and Jackson (2024) similarly emphasize that awareness in Mongolian poetics and ritual literature is not something one merely cultivates internally. Rather, it is a relational field through which vows, ethical memory, and subtle resonance emerge and take form.

_________________________

Can “Setgel” Be Translated?

Recent scholarship has begun to reframe setgel not simply as a linguistic or psychological term, but as a culturally situated epistemic site—resisting direct equivalence with “mind,” “emotion,” or “soul.” In doing so, these studies invite us to understand setgel as a relational and affective threshold for insight, ethical discernment, and poetic presence.

Elizabeth H. Turk (2024, p. 5) cautions that setgel has undergone shifts in contemporary Mongolia, but still holds layers of metaphysical and ethical association that resist full translation. She describes it as a “carrier of ethical interiority,” whose subtle depth is often flattened when rendered as mere cognition or feeling.

Simon Wickhamsmith (2025, p. 877), in his reading of Danzanravjaa’s poetry, suggests setgel functions as a resonant space—one shaped by recognition, vow, and karmic perception. He encourages us to hear the word in poetry, not just translate it—to allow its poetic function to remain active and unresolved.

Jonathan Mair (2018, pp. 234–236) explores setgel as a challenge to Western epistemology, proposing it as an example of “metacognitive variety.” He notes how its meaning shifts across social, pedagogical, and ritual contexts—underscoring its role as a living term, rather than a static referent.

Zsolt Majer (2019, p. 191) brings historical texture to the conversation, showing how setgel appears in Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar’s ritual poetry as a site of moral clarity, karmic resolve, and devotional offering. It is not simply about something—it does something within ritual and poetic frames.

_________________________

Where to From Here?

Taken together, these scholars point toward a cautious, respectful, and creative approach to translating setgel, especially in contemplative and poetic genres like doha. Rather than seeking a perfect English substitute, they propose a translational ethic that preserves setgel as an open-ended, ethically resonant field.

My feeling is that for a contemporary poet-thinker like Zava Damdin (b.1976), the term setgel is neither abstract nor decorative. When Rinpoche invokes it in his doha, he may well be pointing to a cultivated interiority—something refined through practice, sustained in vow, and attuned to karmic relationship. Only he knows, right?  Nonetheless, in my listening to his usage, setgel seems to function as the threshold where perception and commitment meet—where the unseen and the unspoken, the ethical and the poetic, converge quietly. That’s why I love studying Zava Rinpoche’s poetic works…

Is there more to setgel than existing translations can say? Perhaps the answer lies not in substitution, but in attention—in choosing to listen, to pause, and to let the term remain open. Not everything needs to be resolved in translation. Some words carry their own grammar of knowing, and setgel may be one of them. 

For now, in translating Zava Damdin’s doha, I have chosen to sit with the word setgel—not to resolve it, but to remain in thoughtful relationship with its depth. In doing so, I hope to honour the layered interiority it carries, allowing its complexity to speak without narrowing what it might hold. For an example of such usage, see Mongolian Poetry 27: The Seal Pressed into Mind.

_________________________

Further Reading

Batchelor, Stephen. 2015. “Rebirth and the Karma of Leadership in Inner Asian Buddhism.” Contemporary Buddhism 16(1): 34–49.

Batchelor, Stephen. 2021. The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture. London: Penguin.

Batchelor, Stephen. Buddha, Socrates, and Us: Ethical Living in Uncertain Times. New Haven: Yale University Press, forthcoming 2025.

Jackson, Roger R. 2024. Saraha: Poet of Blissful Awareness. Boulder: Shambhala Publications.

Mair, Jonathan. 2018. “Metacognitive Variety, from Inner Mongolian Buddhism to Post-truth.” In Metacognitive Diversity: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Joëlle Proust and Martin Fortier, 231–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Majer, Zsolt. 2019. “Three Ritual Prayers by Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar.” In Sources of Mongolian Buddhism, edited by Vesna A. Wallace, 187–199. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schneider, Thomas. 2022. “Hermeneutics and Esotericism in Buddhist Poetics.” University of Freiburg Working Papers in Religious Translation Studies, 5–12.

Sumegi, Angela. 2013. “On Souls and Subtle Bodies: A Comparison of Buddhist and Western Perspectives.” In Religion and the Subtle Body in Asia and the West, edited by Geoffrey Samuel and Jay Johnston, 124–129. London: Routledge.

Turk, Elizabeth H. 2024. “Making ‘Setgel’s Creature’ Mindful: Conceptual Change in Contemporary Mongolia.” Medicine Anthropology Theory 11(2): 1–19.

Van der Braak, André. 2021. “Reimagining Buddhism in a Secular Age: Stephen Batchelor’s Secular Buddhism.” Buddhism in Dialogue with Contemporary Societies.

Wickhamsmith, Simon. 2025. “In the Presence of the Guru: Listening to Danzanravjaa’s Teaching Through His Poetic Voice.” Religions 16(7): 877.

__________________________________________________________

If there are any errors of judgement in this article, they are of my own making.

For these, I humbly apologise.

__________________________________________________________

Refer to the INDEX for other articles that may be of interest.

© 2013-2026. CP in Mongolia. “Letter from Mongolia 13: Setgel in Translation” is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ScholarGPT provided an additional channel for research. Documents linked from this page may be subject to other restrictions. Posted: 16 January 2026. Last updated: 16 January 2026.