Article on the New Year of Queen Tae from the perspective of a third country scholar.

 It was written by P. N. Mohan, a professor at the University of Sydney, "Rescuing a Stone from Nationalism: A Fresh Perspective on the Kwanggaet'o Stele of Koguryo (A new perspective: Queen Gwanggaet: Beyond the limits of nationalism)." Professor Lee is an Indian and is currently a professor of history at the University of Sydney. He points out that the interpretation of the articles of the New Year of Queen Tae from the past to the present of the three kingdoms of Korea, China, and Japan is interpreted in a way that is advantageous to each other's advantage from an extremely nationalistic perspective. Therefore, it is argued that the inscription cannot be interpreted in the worldview of the time of the establishment of the Taewangbi because it is biased only toward the literary interpretation fight. Accordingly, the first thing to consider is that as Buddhism was introduced to Goguryeo in the 4th century, related parts of continental civilization spread together, and Goguryeo gradually assimilated into the cultural characteristics of Indian-Chinese civilization, and aristocrats recognized the exhibition aspect of written language. It suggests that this is a general feature that appears along with the route of Buddhist tanks. In other words, the tradition of Indian Sanskrit-style investigation, India's "praise" history, and the practice of building colorful monuments in China from the 4th to early 5th centuries are consistent with Buddhist symbols, exaggerations, praise, and enormous scale monuments that were not seen in the past. If you interpret the New Myo Year article through this cultural similarity, it is argued that interpreting the New Myo Year phrase in the inscription as faithfully recorded in historical facts will inevitably lead to a wrong interpretation. This is already a fairly widely formed perception among some Japanese scholars and Western Eastern historians, which is better accepted by Western scholars in that it is generally found in areas where Indian Sanskrit culture has spread. More specifically, it is said that the sanctification of the king in various inscriptions of the Three Kingdoms, including the Taewangbi, stems from the idea of King Jeonseong in India, which means that Indian cultural consciousness by Buddhism is already widely absorbed. In addition, the importance of this sense of King Jeonseong is that as the Buddhist scriptures spread to China, the accident of recognizing Indian Ashoka as King Jeonseong spread. For example, it was a universal belief of Tang Dynasty that 20 of the 84,000 sarira pagodas built by King Ashoka were in the Tang Dynasty, and the emperor said he found Ashoka's sarira pagodas as "false," indicating that heaven was pleased with the emperor's selection. In this regard, the New Year's article in the inscription can be interpreted as giving meaning to King Jeon Seong, who exercises moral and political authority over all surrounding areas, or King Gwanggaetotae as a cosmic ruler. Contrary to the inscription, Baekje was the most dangerous opponent of Goguryeo until 396, and according to an archaeological study by Japan that defeated Silla across the sea, Yamato regime, which was limited to the Guinea region, merged several independent towns or began to properly embrace tribal powers in the early form of central politics. Then, along with such exaggerated praise of the king, why did he record the invasion of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula across the sea of Japan, which was impossible at the time? He reveals two things about this. First, it is the Indian idea of "all-round conquest." This was a phrase about the king's achievements that must appear in Indian inscriptions in the 3rd and 4th centuries during the same period. In India, the ruler strongly exerted influence on the surrounding area and produced an epitaph reflecting the "all-round conquest" accident as a rhetoric about his achievements. This is affecting China as it is again. (King Jeon Ryun-seong is the theme of the four parts of the universe, so if King Tae is King Jeon Ryun-seong, he needs an element of four conquests.) Second, it is common to exaggerate the mission of immigration civilization and charity in consciousness. Another Western professor Ken Gardner pays attention to this and sees it as an investigation to describe King Tae's achievements more dramatically. (The legend needed to secure legitimacy for King Jeonryun's invasion into the South, not a conqueror, and secured it through the logic of preventing immigrants' invasion.)