Science-Based Buddhist Practice: an Illustration Using Doctrinal Charts of Won Buddhism

The recognition of mindfulness-based interventions as an effective approach to address psychological distress and improve well-being has stimulated the development of a multitude of programs, each designed for specific applications. While many mindfulness-based interventions are focused on addressing particular psychological needs, so-called second-generation mindfulness-based interventions typically include overtly spiritual content but also remain secular in their delivery. More recently, explicitly religion-themed mindfulness programs have emerged that are yet to be evaluated scientifically, raising questions as to how this to occur in the most appropriate manner. Referring to doctrinal charts in Won Buddhism, we illustrate an example of how the distinction can be made transparent between content that can be subjected to scientific inquiry and content related to religious and personal beliefs. By delineating elements of belief from practice, areas can be identified that are open for scientific verification without causing offense. Program participants and other practitioners can then clearly identify the specific aspects for which there is widely accepted evidence for their effectiveness, which may then also be communicated as science-based Buddhist practices.

The body of research on the effectiveness of mindfulnessbased interventions (MBIs) has been growing steadily , resulting in an increasing range of programs targeted at specific needs and applications. Starting with Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) that delivers broad content and teaches course participants a range of different exercises, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal et al., 2013) soon followed with its focus on relapse prevention for depression. Since then, a range of other special-focus MBIs have been tested, ranging from specific health applications to educational and social contexts . Many of these follow a format and length similar to the 8-week MBSR or MBCT courses. However, other programs are substantially longer in duration, such as the CRAFT program applied for higher education music students (Bartos et al., 2021). The latter program is also an example of how an increasing range of material is incorporated. Apart from mindfulness, the CRAFT program also draws on content from yoga, emotional intelligence, and positive psychology.
This range of course content is also reflected in the types of outcomes being investigated. Studies have thus not only measured the effects of MBIs on psychological indicators such as depression and anxiety (Thomas et al., 2020), but also employed context-specific measures such as prosocial behaviors, resilience, and emotional regulation in preschool children (Kim et al., 2020). Other programs have explored the effects of mindfulness training on general health and well-being (Querstret et al., 2020), without assuming or requiring some sort of specific health condition that is being addressed by the program. Mindfulness has now become accepted as a mainstream approach (Crane, 2017), to the extent that its wide-spread application has even led to criticisms that mindfulness may become perceived or even promoted as a panacea (Van Dam et al., 2018). While MBIs can be regarded as so-called complex interventions in the sense that they expose participants to a range of material and content (Shennan et al., 2011), it is still necessary to provide a detailed list of course content to enable adequate investigations into the elements that may contribute to their effectiveness.
Apart from the need for scientific scrutiny, clear communication about course content, material, and exercises is also necessary for the sake of transparency as potential participants decide whether the MBI is suitable for them. This is particularly the case for so-called second-generation MBIs (SG-MBIs) that can be spiritual in nature, include a wider range of meditative techniques, and emphasize the role of mindfulness in relation to ethical behavior (Van Gordon et al., 2015a, 2015b. This is in contrast to first-generation MBIs (FG-MBIs) such as MBSR or MBCT that are generally focused on addressing specific health issues. With their focus on present-moment and nonjudgmental awareness, approaches such as those propagated in FG-MBIs have been criticized for lacking ethical context (Stanley et al., 2018) and even to promote an excessive form of here-and-nowism (Purser, 2015). While some debate has taken place as to whether MBI participants independently relate their practice to their own sense of morality, such integration may still need to be guided (Krägeloh, 2016). SG-MBIs, in contrast, provide a more active form of awareness, using "discriminative wisdom in order to discern what might be the most skilful and compassionate response in any given situation" (Shonin & Van Gordon, 2015, p.900).
The manner in which religious content is included and presented in MBIs has been a delicate issue (Crane, 2017;Palitsky & Kaplan, 2021). Although SG-MBIs could be described as re-instating the original connection of mindfulness with spirituality, such programs are generally presented as being secular (Shonin & Van Gordon, 2015). Of course, such designation may not mean that participants perceive it that way (Palitsky & Kaplan, 2021), particularly given the well-documented links to Buddhism in developing MBIs . For programs that have explicitly religious content, in contrast, any form of ambiguity in this regard would be absent. Such programs have been developed not only for Buddhism (Wu et al., 2019), but also for other faiths, such as Christianity (Ford & Garzon, 2017;Symington & Symington, 2012) and Islam (e.g., Aslami et al., 2017). As long as the specific orientation of the program is communicated clearly to the participants and the program development and delivery teams have sufficient training and competency, the risk of transgressing any cultural or religious norms is even further reduced.
The perspective of the participants is one issue -one that can be explored and addressed, as is frequently the case when investigating the social validity of such programs in other cultural contexts (Thomas et al., 2016;Watson et al., 2016). When it comes to scientific evaluation of religiousthemed mindfulness programs, on the other hand, there are also other stakeholders involved, namely the program developers and any associated religious communities. Evaluation of programs with spiritual and religious themes therefore becomes not only culturally complex but potentially a balancing act between adequate scientific scrutiny and being respectful to elements relating to specific religious beliefs and philosophical assumptions. The present discussion attempts to propose how such investigation may proceed. Referring to the doctrinal charts of Won Buddhism, we illustrate how separation between items of belief and items of practice can be made very clearly and transparently, thus permitting psychological research to address those elements that are comparable to FG-MBIs and SG-MBIs. Practices that are meant to foster mindfulness and pro-social behaviors can thus be delineated from aspects related to particular belief systems. In this manner, religious mindfulness programs and practices can be studied without being perceived as challenging core beliefs. Any salutogenic benefits of such programs and practices may, in principle, also be advertised with the confidence that claims are based on the same scientific rigor that has been applied to secular MBIs.

Won Buddhism
Within the religious landscape of South Korea, Won Buddhism has established itself among the major religions (Kim, 2002), with many meditation centers and temples now also found around the world (www. wonbu ddhism. org). Won Buddhism was founded in Korea during the early twentieth century by Park Chung-Bin (1891-1943, later known under the religious title Sot'aesan (Chung, 1984). Upon his spiritual enlightenment, Sot'aesan expressed his insight into the ultimate truth of the universe in the following way: All things in the universe are of unitary noumenal nature and all dharmas are of unitary source, amongst which the way of neither arising nor ceasing and the principle of cause-effect response, being mutually grounded on each other, have formed a round framework (Chung, 2003, p.167).
To designate this framework, Sot'aesan referred to a one-circle sign (ilwŏnsang), which is seen to represent the ultimate truth of the universe (Chung, 1984). Won Buddhist temples enshrine the one-circle sign instead of a Buddha image (Park, 2003). Won Buddhist scriptures (Chung, 2003) make frequent references to the distinction between Dharmakāya Buddha (truth or essence Buddha), Saṃbhogakāya Buddha (enjoyment or reward Buddha), and Nirmāṇakāya Buddha (manifestation Buddha). The onecircle symbol in Won Buddhism refers to the Dharmakāya Buddha, sometimes communicated as a representation of Buddha's enlightened mind (Chung, 1984) or the Buddha nature (Park, 1997).
Initially, Sot'aesan established the so-called Society for the Study of the Buddha-Dharma (불법연구회, 佛法研究會) in 1924 (Chung, 1984). In 1947, the order's name was changed by Sot'aesan's successor, the second Prime Dharma Master Chŏngsan , to Won Buddhism (Wŏnbulgyo, 원불교, 圓佛敎). The scriptures of Won Buddhism describe that its founding motive was to establish a religion for the modern world (Chung, 2003;Kim, 1994). The time period during which Won Buddhism emerged was characterized by political hardship, but at the same time the world was experiencing rapid technological advancements. Sot'aesan argued that humanity's spiritual and moral development was lagging behind this material progress, thus necessitating spiritual practice that is fit for these circumstances. While Won Buddhism has been described both as a new religion as well as reformed Buddhism (Baker, 2012), its philosophical framework and many of its practices share strong similarities with Zen (Park, 2003). This view is reinforced by the fact that both Zen Buddhism and Won Buddhism were heavily influenced by Daoism, and the one-circle sign is also a common feature in Zen Buddhism (Kim, 1994).
An additional source of influence on Won Buddhist thought was Confucianism (Kim, 1994), which was the dominant philosophical doctrine in Korea for many centuries (Chung, 1988). During Sot'aesan's time, Buddhism was often described as nihilistic (Chung, 1988;Park, 2020), and Won Buddhism thus aimed to provide a synthesis of Confucian and Buddhist moral systems. This integration was based on the view that Buddhism tended to emphasize formless aspects, while Confucianism was concerned with form (Kim, 1994). While the one-circle sign points to the absolute or to true emptiness, it also serves as a standard for moral discipline (Chung, 1984). In the phenomenal manifestation of emptiness, the principle of dependent origination is noticeable in all things in the universe. Sot'aesan grouped the manifest sources of the law of causal retribution through the concept of four graces or beneficences (사은, 四恩): heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws (Chung, 2003). As human life would not be possible without these four beneficences, they are regarded as the foundation of Won Buddhist morality, which is exerted through awareness and requital of these beneficences (Chung, 1984). Sot'aesan also formulated principles of the requital of beneficence (Chung, 2003), namely harboring no false idea upon rendering favors to others (beneficence of heaven and earth), protecting the helpless (beneficence of parents), the way of mutual benefit (beneficence of fellow beings), and the way of eradicating injustice and maintaining justice (beneficence of laws).
Since, according to Won Buddhism, the sources of blessings and rewards are not from a supernatural entity but from concrete sources around us, all things in the universe are treated as Buddhas (Chung, 1984). This is expressed in the motto that everywhere is a Buddha image and that everything is to be done as an offering to Buddha (Chung, 2003). The three aspects of one's original nature, namely samādhi (concentration), prajñā (wisdom), and śīla (precepts), should therefore be realized in mundane affairs (Chung, 1988). This applied and practical outlook is also noticeable in the tendency of Won Buddhism to avoidance superstitions, for example when treating key rings or images in motor cars as practice reminders rather than as protective amulets (Pye, 2002). All of these characteristics of Won Buddhism appear to make it a suitable candidate to illustrate how sciencebased Buddhist practice may be suitably proposed. The subsequent section presents examples of doctrinal charts used in Won Buddhism, where a delineation between aspects of faith and aspects of practice has already been made.

Doctrinal Charts of Won Buddhism
When finalizing the scriptures of Won Buddhism, Sot'aesan presented a doctrinal chart to present the quintessence of his teachings (Chung, 2003). This doctrinal chart (Fig. 1), often noted by Won Buddhists to resemble the shape of a turtle, is presented right at the beginning of the Won Buddhist scriptures. The head of the turtle, so to speak, is the one-circle sign, representing Dharmakāya Buddha. Shown as the four limbs of the turtle are the so-called Four Grand Platforms of Won Buddhism (Chung, 1988). Correct enlightenment and right practice refers to the goal of enlightening to one's Buddha nature (Chung, 2012). It also contains Sot'aesan's idea that Buddhism should not be practiced remote from society but directly within society such that temples are to be erected not only in rural settings but also in urban environments. This idea responded to the situation in Korea at the time of Sot'aesan, where Buddhist temples, due to historical reasons, had been forced to retreat increasingly into rural areas. The platform practical application of Buddha-dharma encourages Won Buddhists that their practice is to occur in all aspects of life, including in handling everyday affairs -advice that is also commonly found in other Mahāyāna traditions (Chung, 1988). Awareness and requital of beneficence reminds practitioners of their indebtedness to the four beneficences (heaven and earth, parents, fellow beings, and laws), without which their life would not be possible. A life of resentment is thus to be transformed into a life of gratitude. Lastly, selfless service for the public promotes Mahāyāna altruism that forsakes egoistic motives for the benefit of the greater good (Chung, 1988).
The top of the center column of the doctrinal chart (Fig. 1) defines what is meant by the socalled truth of ilwŏnsang, thus defining Dharmakāya Buddha. A distinction is also made here between ilwŏnsang as the one-circle sign and ilwŏn, to which this sign is referring to. To explain this distinction, Sot'aesan equates the former to a finger that points to the moon, whereas the latter is something that cannot be expressed in words (Kim, 1994). The second box in the center column of the doctrinal chart contains a gāthā that Sot'aesan composed on the truth of ilwŏnsang. This verse is to inspire intuitive reflection since emptiness and the state of one's original nature cannot be grasped through ratiocinations (Chung, 1988).
The right-hand column of the doctrinal chart ( Fig. 1) presents what it calls the way of faith, based on cause-effect response. While the practitioner is reminded that their faith is based on the understanding that the universe is guided by cause-effect relationships, it still presents the items in this column as articles of faith, which may perhaps be seen as equivalent to working assumptions in science. First, the four beneficences are listed as the way in which Sot'aesan grouped the noticeable sources of beneficence in his formulation of the concept of causal dependent origination (Kim, 1997). In the subsequent box, general ways of requital to the four beneficences are listed. For example, in response to heaven and earth, which operates in a fully impartial and complete way, humans are to requite their indebtedness by modelling their behavior on nature. The way of harboring no false idea after rendering favors thus encourages practitioners to have no lingering thoughts that may lead to resentment, a practice based on the Mahāyāna concept of no thought (Krägeloh, 2013). The box below states that this requital of beneficence is an offering to Buddha. As Kim (1997) described it, "the act of living faith is requital to all beings while treating all beings as Buddhas" (p.95). This maxim of ubiquitous and constant practice is also expressed in the final box of the right-hand column, which states that everything in the world is to be regarded as a Buddha image and that all acts are to be conducted as if making an offering to Buddha.
The left-hand column of the doctrinal chart ( Fig. 1) shows the way of practice in Won Buddhism. Although laced in language of Buddhist philosophy, such as true emptiness cum (Latin word for with) marvelous existence, these are items of concrete practice. Using an analogy, Sot'aesan has described the way of practice as a medical art (Chung, 2003). Listed in the first section of the column showing the way of practice is the so-called threefold practice (Fig. 1). This practice is similar to the Buddhist doctrine of the three modes of practice (Park, 2003), namely calmness and concentration (samādhi), wisdom (prajñā), and morality and precepts (śīla). Sot'aesan broadened these concepts into what he described as spiritual cultivation, inquiry into facts and principles, and mindful karmic action, respectively. In order to carry out this threefold practice effectively, Sot'aesan listed four so-called articles or attributes to maintain (faith, zeal, doubt, and sincerity) as well as four to abandon (disbelief, greed, laziness, and delusion). In keeping with the attitude that Buddhist practice is ubiquitous and constant, the bottom left box of Fig. 1 contains the phrases timeless Zen and placeless Zen. Just above this box, description is provided how this is to take place. Here, a distinction is made between Zen practice during leisure time (where the goal is to eliminate distracting thoughts) and during times when engaged in everyday-life affairs (where the goal is to develop moral behavior).
While Fig. 1 is the main doctrinal chart that is presented at the beginning of the Won Buddhist scriptures, there is a general tendency for much of the teaching to utilize similar charts. One relevant example here is a chart presented by the third Prime Dharma Master Daesan (1914Daesan ( -1998. Titled as The Two Great Dharmas of Training (Daesan, 2015), this chart lists the types of practices to be conducted during times of quietude and times of activity (Fig. 2). The left-hand column, designated as fixed-term training, lists the spiritual activities to be conducted during times of leisure. These are grouped into clusters of cultivation (broader category roughly equivalent to samādhi), inquiry (prajñā), and mindful choice in action (śīla). In regard to cultivation, chanting and seated meditation is listed. To develop wisdom, practitioners are encouraged to engage in a variety of activities, namely reading scriptures, attending lectures, having dharma conversations, engaging in cases of questioning (e.g., hwadu or kōan practice; Park, 1997), following advice about the so-called principles of the nature (referring to discourses about humans' original nature in the Won Buddhist scriptures; Chung, 2003), and keeping a fixed-term diary (such as recording how one handled challenging situations or experiences of spiritual insights). In order to develop moral behavior, practitioners are advised to keep a daily diary to record number of times one noticed how one had behaved mindfully or absentmindedly, as well as whether one had broken any precepts. Heedfulness refers to instances where one does not forget in each everyday-life situation what one has resolved to do, and deportment refers to checking one's conduct and evaluating to what extent it reflects what one has learned (Chung, 2003).
Engaging in spiritual practices and recording one's progress is something that is described as activities during times of quietude. When engaging in daily activities, in contrast, practitioners are advised to follow the practices listed in the right-hand column of the chart (Fig. 2). Here, a distinction is made between general daily applications and when visiting a temple. In the latter case, various activities are Fig. 1 Main doctrinal chart presented as a pre-amble to the Won Buddhist scriptures (adapted from Chung, 2003). Note that the content shown here is Chung's (2003) translation of the 1943 version and not one found in the later 1962 edition ◂ recommended, with the encouragement to keep reflecting on any experiences of spiritual awakening. The advice for daily activities is also presented in terms of the threefold practice. For mindful choice in karmic action, practitioners are reminded to base their choices on careful and sound thought. In order for behavior to be based on understanding of facts and principles, practitioners are told to prepare their activities in advance -informed by previous knowledge of what is required to ensure a skillful outcome. Additionally, one is to maintain curiosity through asking, learning, and resolving doubt. In terms of cultivation (samādhi), practitioners are reminded to maintain a tranquil mind.
To conclude the outline of the Won Buddhist doctrine as presented in the doctrinal charts, there is clear delineation of aspects of faith and those related to practice. Although generally couched in Buddhist terminology, the intention of Won Buddhist teachers was to outline concrete activities of spiritual practice as well as their purpose within the framework of the so-called threefold practice (equivalent to concentration, wisdom, and morality). A further feature of these teachings is how these practices are different depending on whether one is engaging in daily activities such as work or whether one has leisure time. With this distinction, it is intended that these activities are applied continuously throughout the day, following the motto of timeless Zen and placeless Zen.

Benefits of Outlining Science-Based Buddhist Practice
The purpose of outlining the Won Buddhist doctrinal charts was to illustrate the type of preparation necessary to enable exploration and communication of science-based Buddhist practice. As highlighted in Fig. 1, a delineation between aspects related to faith and those related to practice elucidates how a scientific inquiry into Buddhist practices can proceed. This way, empirical data on the effects of such practices can be collected without challenging core beliefs and values of teachers and practitioners of such practice traditions. The purpose of the chart in Fig. 2 was to illustrate how elements of Buddhist practice may be clearly specified  Daesan, 2015) as well as their supposed role within the overall practice framework. So, how should investigations into science-based Buddhist practice proceed and what would be the potential benefits?
Investigations into Buddhist practices are certainly not new, and often such studies explored the effects of Buddhist practice in brain imaging studies (Engström et al., 2021). However, given the diverse and long-term nature of such practice, it is often not known which specific aspects and practices contributed to any observable outcomes. While much of the research has focused on meditation practice (Dahl et al., 2015), less is known about the benefits of related practices such as chanting, which are only starting to be explored (Oman et al., 2022). Additionally, in the short to medium term, what remains to be documented in more detail is the effects of religiously themed MBIs such as those that are based on explicitly Buddhist material (Palitsky & Kaplan, 2021). For Christian MBIs, such comparisons have been made (Feuille & Pargament, 2015), with some evidence that spiritualized mindfulness was related to enhanced mindful awareness. Recently, Wu et al. (2019) reported on a Mahāyāna Buddhist intervention and concluded that it was an effective program to reduce stress and increase psychological well-being. While the study contained some limitations, the authors provided useful advice for future research that explores the effects of similar Buddhist-themed interventions.
Given the early stage in which research on Buddhist MBIs is currently at, it is likely that, for the time being, evaluation of such programs will remain focused on intervention effects in their entirety, thus simply comparing pre-and post-intervention changes. As the field matures, however, it is likely that research will start unpacking the various elements of such programs, perhaps even daring to make claims about active ingredients of intervention components. To what extent individual elements can be isolated remains to be seen. Even when avoiding a reductionist approach and recognizing the holistic nature of mindfulness practice, research may still attempt to draw fairly nuanced comparisons between Buddhist MBIs and either FG-or SG-MBIs. MBSR, for instance, is frequently treated as a gold standard (Van Dam et al., 2018), and differences between a specific Buddhist MBI and such a gold standard may be quantified, such as in terms of diversity of practice, duration of practice, and combination of specific exercises, as well as participantrelated variables such as motivation, attendance, and engagement with the program. Clear delineation of practice-related and belief-related aspects of explicitly Buddhist MBIs is the first step toward enabling such comparative work. Our above analysis of the Won Buddhist charts was intended to illustrate how such a delineation may be communicated.
Certainly, science-based Buddhist practice is not limited to Buddhist MBIs (Wu et al., 2019) but is relevant more broadly. Some of the Buddhist programs are substantially longer, even spanning as long as two years (Smith et al., 2019). Buddhist exercises and meditation that can be studied using the scientific method can obviously also occur in general practice contexts that are not linked to particular time frames. In either case, a further benefit of promoting the identification and documentation of science-based Buddhist practice could be in terms of its effect on relevant research and practice communities. By encouraging practice facilitators, teachers, and program developers to specify aspects of belief and those pertaining to practice, it may be easier to arrive at an agreement as to which elements could be available for experimental manipulation. Core philosophical and religious assumptions are not being challenged, and scientific analysis will less likely be regarded as a threat, and ideally even as an activity that is to be welcomed and encouraged. Practitioners can be re-assured that main assumptions of their religious practice remain untouched, while aspects related to practice could be varied to optimize their impact.
In the process of identifying program characteristics pertaining to practice, teachers and program developers of science-based Buddhist practice may be encouraged to verbalize specific nuances of their practice, which may in turn help develop relevant theory of mindfulness and related constructs. As Shonin and Van Gordon (2015) outlined, spiritually based mindfulness practice involves a more active type of awareness including development of discriminative wisdom to guide compassionate behavior. A similar contrast to FG-MBIs was also reported when senior ordained Buddhists were interviewed about the definition of mindfulness implicit in commonly used questionnaires (Feng et al., 2018). Judging was not necessarily viewed as an indicator of lack of mindfulness and depended on whether judgments were informed by wisdom and evaluation of whether thoughts were wholesome or unwholesome. To distinguish between the different conceptualizations of mindfulness, Krägeloh (2018) suggested the use of different terms. In contrast to mindfulness, which is generally understood in psychological research in the context of FG-MBIs, Buddhist understandings may instead be communicated as heedfulness to avoid conflation of psychological constructs. The need for an expanded terminology is also noticeable when reading translations of Buddhist books. For instance, when translating the work of the fourth Prime Dharma Master Chwasan of Won Buddhism, translations into English needed to make the distinction between one-mindedness and mindfulness (Chwasan, 2012).
Given that many Buddhist traditions refer to emptiness as a core philosophical teaching, it is not surprising to see that the psychological literature has also increasingly started to discuss the relevance of nonduality in mindfulness practice and research (Van Gordon et al., 2021). Although attempts have been made to define nonduality (e.g., Dunne, 2011), the topic is philosophically complex (Krägeloh, 2019). Promoting science-based Buddhist practice can certainly be the catalyst for future work on nondual awareness, as the delineations between philosophy, religion, and spiritual practices are being elucidated more clearly with future research in the area.
Calls for science and Buddhism to work more closely together have been made before (Van Gordon et al., 2015a, 2015b, although the details remain to be outlined on how this is to proceed. The purpose of the present article was to propose investigations into what may be described as science-based Buddhist practice. Referring to Won Buddhism as an example, we discussed how a delineation of aspects related to faith and those related to spiritual practice may be made. A clear understanding of elements of Buddhist practice that may be investigated empirically will enhance scientific exploration while at the same time recognizing and respecting aspects related to religious beliefs. As core philosophical and religious assumptions are not seen to be challenged, scientific analysis will less likely be regarded as a threat, and ideally even be viewed as a welcome activity to help optimize spiritual practice. Research on science-based Buddhist practice also has the potential to inform further theoretical development of mindfulness and related psychological constructs, particularly the extent to which they might align with or differ from mindfulness as taught in MBIs or in other contexts. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A6A3A01109513).

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.