I found it from Asiafinest forum : (Read carefully! I didn`t get the full idea cuz he is using a lot of bla bla words but I guess he want to change Soyombo or saying that we don`t need what is under Fire-Sun-Moon
)
By Tirthankar Mukherjee
Certain things relating to a country are very much for its own people to decide. Among them is choosing what the national emblem should be. Right now, Mongolia is going through its own process of doing this. From what I gather, a new emblem is not yet chosen but two designs have been shortlisted and unless something new is offered that impresses a parliamentary panel very much, one of these two will be selected. One thing is certain; the Soyombo – or the Soyambo; the transliteration varies, as with most names here, much to the confusion of non-Mongolians – is on its way out.
This, as I said, is entirely a matter for the Mongolians to decide and I would never have written about it and risk being called a meddlesome foreigner, or worse, if it were not for the sensible words — if spoken a little too strongly, but, then, it is the privilege of youth to be passionate – of a student that were published in the UB Post of August 31.He wonders if there is any need at all to change the emblem (shown in the middle of the horse in the picture), let alone to change it now. I could not agree more with him on both counts.
I get the impression that the Mongolian is somewhat apathetic to a public debate on anything of national importance. It could be that those who grew up in the days where the tradition of one never existed find it difficult to realize that democracy, by which they swear, can be meaningful only when they make their voice heard. They must make sure that they stand up and are counted. Another problem is that the young people who dominate the population do not wish to “be involved”; in other words, they could not care less. I have tried to engage quite a few of them in discussing “current affairs” and have always received the impression that they do not think any of this is their business, and that they have other priorities.
An emblem is defined as a heraldic or representative device, but as soon as the word “national” or “state” is put before it, it takes on the added role of being the embodiment of what the nation is, or wishes to be. In that way, national emblems cannot or should not change except only if, and when, the nation undergoes a radical change in its social/political/cultural orientation and ambition. The removal of the socialist star from atop the Soyombo was inevitable and imperative when the state structure was transformed, but dispensing with the Soyombo itself, as is being planned to do now, would be like throwing the baby out along with the bathwater.
A nation which is justifiably so proud of its ancient lineage cannot shed its cultural insignia like yesterday’s fashions. More so in this case as the word Soyombo itself, derived from the Sanskrit Svayambhu, indicates endless, effortless, and unstoppable continuity. The original has two parts, svayam meaning “self” and bhu “being”. Together they mean something or somebody that has created itself/himself. It can refer to God as well as to Time. This is time that has always been there, pre-dating God or the Big Bang, even though there was nobody to realise its existence. Time is also free from any conceivable constraint. It never stops, except in metaphor, and never errs on its course, and can never be altered or manipulated.
I find the whole design very modern in its geometric shapes and exactitudes, but the representation is also full of symbolisms. The two vertical columns on either side stand for the State and Dharma. This dharma is not the religious denomination people profess, but “a total way of life”. The two thus symbolize temporal and moral power, together standing as stable and secure defenders against encroachment, territorial or ethical. I am told that this concept of Two Principles dates back to Khubilai Khan’s philosophy of governance. The complementary nature of the two canons that indicate the rights and duties of citizens stems from the Buddhist encouragement of an alliance between the Throne and the Altar which was encoded in the old Mongolian work Tsagan Cheuke or White Annals.
At the center are two fish, with the head of each to the tail of the other, symbolising constant renewal – in one’s end is the other’s beginning. Mongolian folklore credits the fish with vigilance as it is a creature that does not close its eyes. There are two of them, indicating the bipolarity of our world in everything – man and woman, wit and wisdom, the yin and the yang… the combinations can be endless.
The two smaller rectangles above and below the fish denote the need for honesty and dedication on the part of all, the high and the low, to sustain the equilibrium of personal and national life. The two triangles are straight from the Mongolian imperial tradition in which the lance or an arrowhead pointing downwards can mean two things, both relevant in a national emblem. These are “death to the enemy (without and within)”, and “integrity and straightforwardness”.
The headpiece shows the sun, the moon and fire – three symbols that have dominated human imagination from pre-history to the present day. The folk wonder may have given way to esoteric philosophical nitpicking but the three remain eternal symbols. The two heavenly bodies were ancient totems of Mongolians and I am told there are traditional songs still sung that say Mongolians had for their father the young moon and mother the golden sun. The fire is prosperity, purification, and ascent, its three flames signifying the past, the present, and the future.
There is nothing in all this to offend any sensibility, but a great deal to ponder and be proud of. And the main purpose of a national emblem is to offer people an ideal, and to make people feel proud of it and to live up to it. I wonder what good is hoped to be done by replacing this link with the past. Have we been told why the Soyombo is felt to be inadequate to express Mongolian aspirations, or if it has unsavory associations unworthy of the principles the nation wishes to uphold? And what exactly do the two designs now making the rounds signify? One champion of the one with a mythical bird has made the astounding claim that many countries, among them developed nations in Europe, have birds in their emblems. So?
And, has any estimate been made of the huge financial cost the change will impose on a State which is a priority area for donor countries and institutions?
UB post.(=I guess it is name of Mongolian Newspaper in English).
(Things he wrote about symbolism of Soyombo is right, but I still don`t understand his words -what he want
)
There are many thinkers but few Creators. I try to create something but now I`m just another thinker.
I never heard name "Tirthankar Mukherjee" before! Yes ppl have right to choose, but ppl must understand what to admit.
Maybe "soyombo" is not right symbol for some Jungars & Mongolian Kazaks.
U know the creator of "Soyombo" was Zanabazar, He is Mongolian Da Vinci! Thinkers can speak a lot, but only creators dictate! I mean Tirthankar Mukherjee has created nothing compare to Zanabazar.