Scientific Paradigm Of The New Industrialization As A Theoretical .
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume 39Competitive, Sustainable and Secure Development of the Regional Economy: "Response to Global Challenges" (CSSDRE 2018)Scientific Paradigm of the New Industrialization asa Theoretical Framework for Economic Growth ofRegionsYakov Petrovich SilinEvgeny Georgievich AnimitsaUral State University of Economics,Head of the UniversityEkaterinburg, Russiaodo@usue.ruUral State University of Economics,Chair of the Department for Regional and MunicipalEconomy and ManagementEkaterinburg, Russiaega@usue.ruNatalia Valerievna NovikovaUral State University of Economics,Associate Professor of the Department for Regional and Municipal Economy and ManagementEkaterinburg, Russianovikova@usue.ruAbstract — The article addresses core provisions of theemerging scientific paradigm of the new industrialization. Theneed for Russia and its regions to switch over to a model of thenew industrialization is not open to question. However, there isno clear understanding of the processes of the newindustrialization and their economic size. Finding ways andmechanism for implementing the process of the newindustrialization on the scale of the country and its regionsremains an issue. In the course of the research, the authorssystematised conceptual provisions of the scientific paradigm ofthe new industrialization to create a theoretical framework foreconomic growth and development of the regions.Keywords — industrialization, new industrialization, scientificparadigm, the scientific paradigm of the new industrialization,economic space of the region, economic development of regionsI. INTRODUCTIONRussia’s rapid transition from an administrative andplanned economy to a market-driven economy of a liberal andmonetary nature led to socio-economic shocks of variousdepth and duration. The key features of such transition were asfollows: a marked decline in macroeconomic indicators;sluggish economic growth; large-scale depreciation of fixedassets; increase in the simplification of the productionstructure; progressive catch up with world leaders; significantdecline in consumer demand; highly explosive polarization ofthe population in terms of income; creeping prices for goodsand services; real possibility of mass poverty; increase inheterogeneity of the economic space, etc.These and other negative trends clearly indicate that thereasons for their emergence lie in the very essence of theexisting model of economic management and administration,implemented by socio-economic policies at the federal andregional levels.Scientists, experts, officials of federal and regionalauthorities responsible for economic policy started theagonizing quest for searching the ways out of the currentsituation, offering various forms and options for the transitionto sustainable and systemic economic growth, elaboratingdevelopment strategies as a response to the historic challengethat our country has faced at the turning point of the centuries.It becomes obvious that our country currently has no otherway to overcome its technological backwardness andtechnological dependence but to implement a policy of thenew industrialization, being adequate to today’s challengesand the prevailing geo-economic and geopolitical situation.However, the scientific paradigm of the newindustrialization is currently at the stage of formation for thefollowing reasons. Firstly, the very notion of the “newindustrialization” is relatively new to domestic science.Secondly, the unformed terminological apparatus leads to theuse of concepts different in writing (for ization”,“neoindustrialization”), but they are close, single-order incontent and include such terms as “superindustrialization” and“advanced industrial development”.Copyright 2018, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license 47
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume 39This article aims to systematise key conceptual provisionsof the scientific paradigm of the new industrialization of thecountry and its regions.II. MATERIALS AND METHODS (MODEL)During the research, we used a comparative analysismethodology.III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIn modern dictionaries, the notion of the paradigm (fromGreek paradeigma – ‘example’, ‘pattern’) is treated as a set ofprerequisites that determine the specific scientific research(knowledge) and recognised at this stage [1, p. 332]. Theconcept of the scientific paradigm and scientific revolutions ofT. Kuhn is recognized by leading scientists of the modern ageas very informative and promising, that is why we use it in ourresearch.T. Kuhn defines the paradigm as follows: “Withparadigms, I mean universally recognized scientificachievements that, for a certain time, provide a model ofposing the problems and their solutions for a scientificcommunity [2, p. 17]Therefore, the scientific paradigm is norms and patterns ofscientific thinking that becoming a tradition in a givenscientific community. Paradigms represent certain scientificstereotypes, patterns of thinking, within which scientists atsome time solve their research tasks.industry is a way of replacing the labor-intensive one with themachine-intensive one” [5, p. 49].In economic dictionaries, the industry (from Latinindustria - activity) is treated as a production sector [6, p.338], mainly factory-and-works and applying machinery [7, p.318].The derived concept of industrialization (from Latinindustria – ‘activity’) is seen as shifting the country'seconomy to industrial basis, the creation of large-scalemachine production in the national economy or its separatefield, and a significant increase in the share of industrialproduction in the economy. The industrialization of aparticular field, for example, agriculture, means its transitionto an industrial (machine) basis [6, p. 337].Industrialization is a significant increase in the share ofindustrial fields in the structure of the economy and theprocess of transition from a mainly agrarian to a mainlyindustrial economy [8, p. 160-161].Modern economic science distinguishes between twomodels of industrialization.The first model brings to the forefront the creation ofindustrial complexes designed to saturate and structure thedomestic market using locally produced products, and onlythen to expand their exports. The second one is exportoriented, it focuses on international industrial specializationand cooperation, with the development of which it placeshopes to saturation of the domestic market and its structuring.The scientific paradigm includes the basic prerequisites,research methods adopted in any given science, as well as thescientists' views on ways of solving scientific issues. Thedevelopment of any field of knowledge is a succession ofscientific paradigms, during which the basic theoreticalconcepts are revised.A crucial role in the implementation of both models isplayed by the state: it determines the main parameters andaims of industrialization, as well as the means to achievethem; on the basis of state investments, the development ofeconomic and social infrastructure is carried out; the stateconducts large-scale industrial entrepreneurship; provides arange of assistance to private entrepreneurship.The scientific paradigm of the new industrialization(neoindustrialization) is in the stage of formation inconnection with the recent appearance of this concept and theobject of scientific knowledge.An unequal natural resource endowment, the use of whichserves as a source of foreign exchange, has an influence on thechoice of the industrialization model.For its construction, we consider it necessary andreasonable to turn to the key provisions of the economictheory of industrialization, since neoindustrialization, “on theone hand, is the continuation of industrialization, and on theother, is its denial” [3, p. 284].Scientists working within the economic theory ofindustrialization refer to the definition of the classic of theeconomic theory by A. Smith, who classified the industry asthe occupation of making machines that allow “one person todo the work of many people”, i.e. two or three or moreworkers [4, p. 17]. It should be noted that the definitionpresented was given at the time when the machine industrywas just arising.Since then, stricter scientific criteria have emerged,according to which “everything connected with a saving oflabor is related to the industry. Following a classicalunderstanding based on the economic laws of our era, theSpecific forms of industrialization and its results arelargely determined by the economic strategy chosen in thecountry.Industrialization is a long process (and not a “revolution”),which had its own specifics in the countries of the “classical”(Western European countries) and “non-classical” capitalism.It is generally accepted to single out several stages(phases) of industrialization, among which are: 1) preindustrial stage (agrarian society, traditional economy); 2)proto-industrial stage (forerunner of industrialization itself); 3)early industrial stage (the first phase of the development ofindustrial society) and the late industrial phase (modernindustrial society).In the USSR, in 1925-1930, a discussion on the study ofthe industrialization process was organized, which revealed anumber of central theoretical problems that are relevant at thepresent time [9, 10]. The key directions of scientific discussion548
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume 39are the choice of the basic concept, means, and methods ofindustrialization.In the 20s of the 20th century, conceptual construction ofindustrialization was reduced to two main approaches.The first approach (industrialization after V.A. Bazarov)involved the solution of the problem of industrializationthrough strengthening the results of the new economic policyby stimulating consumption and the consumer sector, whichmeant stimulating demand and savings, which then had to bedirected towards the problem of deploying production in thepublic sector [11].The second approach (industrialization after F.E.Dzerzhinsky, L.D. Trotsky, and V.I. Stalin) meant thereduction of the new economic policy, the strengthening ofcontrol over rural resources and their subordination to the taskof industrialization. For this, large collective farms in thecountryside were needed that facilitated the control andconcentration of the resource. The task was not just toindustrialize, create a modern industry almost from scratch,since former bourgeois industrial enterprises were destroyedduring the civil war or eked out a precarious existence andlagged far behind technically and technologically from theWestern countries that took advantage of the First World Warfor stimulating the development of their industry.The implementation of the second approach assumed theformation of the heavy industry at the expense of ruralresources, urbanization, the creation of institutional conditionsfor improving the educational and scientific level of Russia, inorder to give the agricultural industry new machinery,equipment, to develop infrastructure, and to create thenecessary defense of the country.Our research of scientific sources showed the lack of unityof views in defining the new industrialization, as well as thedriving forces and mechanisms for its implementation.Scientists differentiate the priorities of the interpretation ofthe new industrialization (neoindustrialization) process.Professor S. S. Gubanov in the development of strialization the second phase of industrialization,focusing on automation of productive forces, turning them intotechnetronic ones.In a series of his articles, S. S. Gubanov advances thefollowing main idea: the new industrialization is understood asa historically natural process of development of the productiveforces, generally, after the completion of the first phase ofindustrialization - electrification. It represents the secondphase of industrialization - automation, and computerizationof the productive facilities. Due to computerization not only aworking machine, but also the controlling one becomeautomated, and the productive forces take the form of atechnetronic triad: the employee - the computer - theautomated means of production [12, 13, etc.].According to S.S. Gubanov, the neoindustrial paradigm ofmodern development includes the theoretical and systemicbasis that developed by 2000 through the discovery andanalytical justification of the two systemic laws ofneoindustrial progress. The first law is the law of machineryreplacement of labor, established in the 1980s and empiricallyconfirmed in 1994 on the materials of the USSR and the USA[14]. The second law is the law of vertical integration, alsodiscovered in the 1980s, but theoretically and strictlymathematically proven in 1998 [15].S.S. Gubanov reveals the content characteristic ofneoindustrialization, developed in the classical paradigm ofknowledge of the mode of production, i.e. in the aspect of bothproductive forces and productive relations: “the paradigm ofthe mode of production, showing the concrete historicalevolution of society from the lower stages to the higher, servesas a solid support for the scientific understanding ofneoindustrialization as the second, digital phase ofindustrialization” [13].Relying on the theory of the mode of production, S.S.Gubanov sees the following formula of modern development:the neoindustrialization of the productive forces and thevertical integration of productive relations.Scientists of the Institute of Economics of the RussianAcademy of Sciences, under the leadership of E.B. Lenchuk,the main content of the new industrialization is the process ofspread of breakthrough technologies covering both theformation of new industries and sectors of the industrialeconomy that reproduce these breakthrough technologies andtheir spread in traditional industries and sectors of theeconomy [16, 17]. It is proposed to consider severalinterrelated aspects of the process of the new industrialization:macroeconomic, structural, technological, resource, andinstitutional [16, p. 6-7].The highlighted aspects of the new industrialization havean internal connection and interdependence, which should betaken into account when forming a policy of modernizing theindustrial potential of the national economy and its regions.To the position of the scientists of the Institute ofEconomics of the Russian Academy of Sciences is close thepoint of view of the professors D. E. Sorokin andS. A. Tolkachev, who classifies the neoindustrialization as alarge-scale introduction of a complex of breakthrough NBICtechnologies into the production process, a fundamentalchange in the essence of the industrial mode of production,which allows: dramatically improve the labor productivity inmanufacturing industries; create new markets (however, sometraditional activities will disappear); form global centers ofrapid industrial growth; reduce the need for unskilled kinds oflabor, which will aggravate the global problem ofunemployment; strengthen the technological superiority ofindustrially advanced countries over the rest of the world [18,p. 88-89].Scientists note that the neoindustrialization is acontinuation of the technological revolution with the transferof its main channel from the sphere of information financialservices and R&D to the production process, with theformation of the sphere of intellectual production, when athought becomes a productive force. Many modern newtechnologies are at the junction of the NBIC group, forexample, the construction of cellular and tissue structures549
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume 39(info cogno),technological, social, environmental, political and managerialchanges. [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, etc.].As the main aim of re-industrialization (“newindustrialization”, “neoindustrialization”) as an economicpolicy, which is a set of concrete measures, ProfessorS. D. Bodrunov sees the restoration of the role and place ofindustry in a country's economy as a basic component, as wellas the priorities for the development of material productionand the real sector of the economy on the basis of a new,advanced technological order within the framework ofmodernization of Russia [19, p. 84].Professor O. A. Romanova highlights the main tools ofthe new industrialization, which are nano-bio-info-cognitivetechnologies (NBIC-technologies), having interdisciplinarynature [26, p. 280]. These technologies, whoseinterpenetration has been called as NBIC-convergence, form ahigh-tech sector of the economy. It is these technologies,along with large-scale “digitalization”, are the central elementof the new technical and economic paradigm. At the sametime, accounting the increasing importance of the person’srole in all the processes of the new industrialization actualizedthe problem of the development of social and humanitarian (S)technologies and the convergence of humanitarian and naturalscientific knowledge, what has been called as NBCIStechnologies.(nano bio), new informationbioinformatics (nano info bio).interfacesIn the works by Professor V.M. Kulkov, the newindustrialization acquires an integral character, including uperindustrialization [20, p. 81-85]. According to thescientist, to carry out a new industrialization in Russia meansto act in all three directions indicated.Each direction has its own sounding, so, reindustrialization in a broad sense is, firstly, the “second wind”of industrialism in our time, and secondly, it serves todesignate a common developmental focus in connection withthe need to have a reliable material and technical base of thenational economy as the basis of the real sovereignty of thecountry. Neoindustrialization is the transition of the Russianeconomy to the level of the modern industrial basis and, ingeneral, the world's advanced technological requirements.Superindustrialization (or advanced development) is adevelopment line, connected primarily with the new (sixth)technological mode, the formation of which begins in theworld. Its most significant elements will be biotechnology(especially molecular biotechnology and genetic engineering),nanotechnology, artificial intelligence systems with the activecontinuation of the development of space technologies, globalinformation networks, nuclear energy, etc.As A.I. Amosov rightly points out, the concepts of“reindustrialization”, “innovative industrialization” and “newindustrial development” reflect various aspects of modernindustrialization. “In the notion of re-industrialization, theemphasis is put on restoring the industry that was destroyed inthe process of de-industrialization. In the studies of innovativeindustrialization, attention is focused on innovation. In thephrase “new industrial development”, the keyword isdevelopment. . When elaborating the concept of newindustrial development, it is necessary to take into account thatinnovation itself and industrialization itself serve only as ameans of achieving goals. The aim of industrialization shouldbe social and economic development. Thus, under the newindustrial development is meant the transition to such a stageof industrialization, when innovation and the spread ofmachines, to a greater degree than before, are subject to theaims of social and economic development” [21, p. 22].Scientists of the Ural scientific school of AcademicianA.I. Tatarkin understand the new industrialization as the dualsynchronous process of creating new high-tech sectors of theeconomy and effective innovative renewal of traditionalsectors, with the agreed qualitative and sequential changesbetween the technical and economic and social andinstitutional spheres implemented through interactiveAbroad, almost synchronously with the research ofRussian scientists, scientific works directly devoted to theneoindustrial economy and its impact on the organization ofproduction began to appear. Foreign scientists recognize thatthe service sector has become predominant, but immediatelyclarify that many are engaged in maintaining the industry inthe sphere of services. According to the researchers, theneoindustrial nature is not some accidental aspect of themodern economy, but the very essence of it. In their opinion,“the modern neoindustrial economy demonstrates many ofthose features that are described in futuristic books. It isknowledge-intensive, as well as service-intensive, andextensively uses information technology, which develops andspreads at an incredible rate” [27, p. 3].In the non-industrial form of the organization, along withproduction, related services oriented to the consumer andflexibility, planning and adaptation are included. Therefore,the conclusion follows: “Industrial society is going through aperiod of prolonged and radical transformation into a nonindustrial economy, caused by the increasing need for flexibleproduction and satisfying the needs of consumers on the basisof opportunities provided by the development of informationtechnologies” [27, p. 2].The question of the driving forces, the mechanism and thepriorities for the implementation of neoindustrializationremains discussible.The question of determining the driving forces ofneoindustrialization is actively discussed in the scientificliterature. In the works by S. Gubanov, the main drivingforces - the state and private capital - are considered; thethesis about the dominant role of the state is put forward.The proposal to create a vertically integrated economystructure for the creation of the state-corporate sector as thecore of the new system of social reproduction is also justified.The proposed offer on the transition to a policy ofneoindustrialization, including the formation of a nationwideplan for the nationalization of strategic economic facilities, iscontroversial; at the same time, a deep justification for theneed for vertical integration and the accumulation of aninternal neoindustrialization fund does not raise doubts amongscientists [13, 14, 15].550
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume 39According to V. Ryazanov, the main driving force ofneoindustrialization is the state - with the supporting role ofmarket relations. In addition, in carrying out theneoindustrialization, the export-oriented model of economicgrowth should be reoriented to activate internal sources ofdevelopment. This implies a stricter control over foreigneconomic relations, rational regulation of capital flows, etc.[28, p. 15].The necessity of elaborating the state policy of the newindustrialization is noted by the scientists of the Institute ofEconomics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy ofSciences: “For a meaningful moving forward in this direction,it is necessary to form a new long-term, verified stateindustrial policy, the most important task of which is to build astate system of legislative, financial, institutional andpersonnel support for the “new industrialization” [16, p. 54].The choice of priorities for the new industrializationremains discussable.A team of scientists, led by Academician V. V. Ivanterbelieves that the new industrialization should be initiated withthe re-creation of the military-industrial complex, which willbe followed by the rest as the multiplier. At the same time,industrial recovery should not be ensured at the expense of thepopulation but using the accumulated serious financialresources. A significant part of them should be directed to thedevelopment of infrastructure [29].Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy ofScience V.A. Tsvetkov expressed another point of view on thepriorities of the new industrialization of the Russian economy.As the starting point of modernization, he called the fuel andenergy complex of Russia [30]. Noting that there are no outof-date production facilities, but there are out-of-dateproduction methods, he suggests choosing as the mostpromising branches of the mining industry (primarily the fueland energy complex) and the national infrastructure (transport,telecommunications, energy). In his opinion, firstly, they haveexternal competitiveness, and secondly, they have necessaryand sufficient conditions for transformation; thirdly, they havea cumulative synergetic development effect and at the sametime, they are the most powerful locomotives for innovations.On this issue, we are close to the position of the scientistsof the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy ofSciences, who note: “A country with a sufficiently largemarket, claiming to be one of the subjects in the worldeconomy, cannot specialize in two or three advancedindustries or technologies. It should take a worthy position in awide range of industries. This becomes especially evident inthe context of the worsening confrontation between Russiaand the West in connection with the increasingly complicatedgeopolitical situation in the world, which Russia will be ableto withstand only if a diversified, technologically independentand competitive economy is formed, oriented to thedevelopment of both promising and traditional technologicalsectors” [16, p. 86].different technological structures solves different tasks: thefuture wave industries guarantee independence and selfsufficiency in the future, the current wave industries providebasic infrastructure and technical support of the economy,“old” industries are the main source of employment [31].Our review of the literature has shown that within theformation of the scientific paradigm, most authors at themacroeconomic (country) level study the processes of the newindustrialization (neoindustrialization). The problems ofinvestigating the new industrialization in the space of regionsand macroregions are practically not affected. It is possible tosingle out only some of the works of the Ural scientistsA. I. Tatarkin,O. A. Romanova,I. V. Makarova,andV. V. Akberdina, devoted to this problem.In particular, A.I. Tatarkin and O.A. Romanova proposedthe definition of the process of the neoindustrialization of theregional economy as a process of creating its new sectors, theeffective renovation of traditional industries and fields ofprocess industry, but also agreed qualitative changes in theentire system of social relations in accordance with therequirements of the time [32, p. thirty].IV. CONCLUSIONBased on the above, we formulate the author's vision of thenew industrialization.We classify the new industrialization in the economicspace of the region as a twofold process that, on the one hand,involves an innovative renewal of traditional basic industries(the process of re-industrialization), and on the other, thecreation of new high-tech manufactures of the fifth and sixthtechnological structures (the process of neoindustrialization)which aims to rise living standards of the population as theresult of increased production efficiency.The main mechanism for the implementation of the newindustrialization in the economic space of the region is anactive state and regional policy.We believe that only on the basis of the newindustrialization policy it is possible to ensure the economicgrowth, to achieve the competitiveness of the old industrialregions, a typical representative of which is the Uralmacroregion. In a series of scientific papers, we presented adetailed study of factors of deindustrialization, as well as keydirections of the new industrialization of the Uralmacroregion. [33, 34, etc.].AcknowledgmentThe research was conducted with the financial support ofthe Russian Foundation for Basic Research under scientificproject No. 18-010-00833 A “Neoindustrialization in thespace of the macroregion in the context of the cyclic wavemethodology (on the example of Ural)”.We must agree with the opinion of K. Perez, a well-knownresearcher in the theory of large waves and innovation cycles,which points out that the development of industries of551
Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), volume ][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]Encyclopedic dictionary of philosophy. M., 1999.Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. M., 2002.Osipov, Yu. M. Neoindustrialization: essence, meaning, and mechanismof realization // Philosophy of economy. 2013. No. 3. P. 283-288.Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth ofNations. The Glasgow Edition of Adam Smith. Edition II. Oxford:Clarendon Press. 1979.Gubanov, S.S. From the export resource-based model to theneoindustrial economic system // Economic revival of Russia. 2015. No.4 (46). P. 48-59.The Great economic dictionary, Ed. A.N. Azriliyan. M., 2004.Ushakov, D.A. The Great explanatory dictionary of the modern Russianlanguage. M., 2008.Rumyantseva, E.E. New economic encyclopedia. M., 2005.Erlich, A. Discussion on industrialization in the USSR. 1927-1928. M.,2010.Sukharev, O.S. Economic theory of industrialization // Bulletin of PermUniversity. Ser. Economy. 2015. Vol. 2 (25). P. 6-14.Bazarov, V. Principles of constructing a long-term plan. // Plannedeconomy. 1928. No. 2. P. 38-63.Gubanov, S. Neoindustrialization plus vertical integration (on theformula for the development of Russia) // Economist. 2008. P. 3-27.Gubanov, S. Neoindustrial developmental paradigm: a briefgeneralization // Ekonomist. 2017. No. 11. P 22-39.Gubanov, S. Level of productive forces: the experience of measurementand intercountry analysis) / / Economist. 1994. No. 8. P. 15-29Gubanov, S. Perspective - transition to a state-corporate economy //Economist. 1998. No. 6. P. 70-83.New industrialization as a condition for the formation of an innovativemodel for the development of the Russian economy. Scientific report.Project coordinator E.B. Lenchuk. M., 2014.New industrial pol
(phases) of industrialization, among which are: 1) pre-industrial stage (agrarian society, traditional economy); 2) proto-industrial stage (forerunner of industrialization itself); 3) early industrial stage (the first phase of the development of industrial society) and the late industrial phase (modern industrial society).
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
MARCH 1973/FIFTY CENTS o 1 u ar CC,, tonics INCLUDING Electronics World UNDERSTANDING NEW FM TUNER SPECS CRYSTALS FOR CB BUILD: 1;: .Á Low Cóst Digital Clock ','Thé Light.Probé *Stage Lighting for thé Amateur s. Po ROCK\ MUSIC AND NOISE POLLUTION HOW WE HEAR THE WAY WE DO TEST REPORTS: - Dynacó FM -51 . ti Whárfedale W60E Speaker System' .
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
