398 klaus sagaster
Apart from the indications in the sources, the revival of the translation
of Buddhist texts into Mongolian is also a proof of this. This revival is
part of a tradition that cannot have been completely interrupted. Such
texts as the “Perfection of Wisdom” (Prajñpramit) and the translation
of the “S tra of Golden Light” (Altan Gerel) on Altan Khan’s request,^90
required a profound knowledge of Buddhist terminology that cannot
be achieved in a few years. Regardless of how skilful such translators
of this period as Bandida Siregetü Güüsi orúi (1570–1638)^91 may have
been, they must have had access to other translations that facilitated their
work. These translations can therefore not have been destroyed after the
fall of the empire. A proof for this is the fact that the texts mentioned
above had already been translated in the Yuan period and, hence, were
only re-edited.^92 This is probably also true for Bandida Siregetü Güüsi
orúi’s translation of the Shes-bya rab-gsal, the “Explanation of what
should be known”, ’Phags-pa’s abhidharma work of 1278, the second
Mongolian version of which, iqula kereglegi, “The Essentials”, is not
a word-for-word translation of the Tibetan original, but a revision.^93
In favour of translation activity that goes back to the period before the
“second conversion” are the manuscript nds of Olon Süme in Inner
Mongolia^94 and of Kharbukhyn Balgas (Qara Buqa-yin Balasun) in
Outer Mongolia.^95 The Mongolian texts, which for the most part are
only fragmentarily preserved, date from around 1600. They represent
a great number of religious and divinatory texts on different themes
and are typical practical texts of the form still used today. Thus these
texts prove that already at the end of the sixteenth century the Bud-
dhist praxis had become a part of the daily life of the Mongols. It is
also noteworthy that, at this time, the Mongolian language was more
in use as a religious language than it was later on, or even today.
The concept “second conversion of the Mongols” following a period
of decline is both untenable and politically biased.^96 With this terminol-
ogy it should be postulated that the older “Red” schools of Tibetan
(^90) Serruys 1963, p. 186.
(^91) Heissig 1959, pp. 33–34 (Siregetü Guosi orúiva); Úiral 1996, p. 160.
(^92) Heissig 1976a, p. 271; Cërënsodnom 1987, p. 235; Cërënsodnom 2002, pp.
264–265.
(^93) See Bareja-Starzyska 2002. Only recently Dr. Bareja-Starzyska has published
a Polish translation of the iqula kereglegi, together with a detailed commentary, see
Bareja-Starzy 94 ska 2006.
See Heissig 1976a.
(^95) See Chiodo 2000 and 2004.
(^96) For a critical evaluation of the positions held by Tibeto-Mongolian and western
historiography, see Dumas 2005.