Welcome to the second session in day three of the OER 22. I'm really pleased to welcome our speakers today, Chloe Beattie, James Brompton and Sophia Pallara. And they are going to be talking about improving accessible and inclusive teaching and learning practices for online higher education students. And they're all from Dublin City University. If you have any comments or questions, please leave those in the comment box. And without further ado, I'm going to hand over to our speakers for our session. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.  Just myself and Chloe and Sophia are going to be presenting today on our efforts to improve accessibility and inclusion on online open education psychology modules, but like broadly in our online programs that we have here in DCU. Chloe, we go to slide two, please.  But the programs that we work on are specifically a set of online open education programs. So built on a kind of traditional open education access philosophy, anyone over the age of 23 to date has been able to just come along and apply for a place and get a place on one of our programs. Students between 18 and 22, there's minimal entry requirements. So a very open access policy with a strong kind of widening participation remit. So our programs are not, they are designed as off campus online programs. You know, they were previously kind of traditional distance education programs. So not lecture based, not, you know, sort of built to be online. Students when they come in, the model is, you know, that they have, they study online learning materials that we create, or that we curate from open educational resources. They interact with each other and the teaching staff in discussion forums, and then they have periodic online classes. So it's that kind of fully online model. In terms of accessibility and inclusion, up until this academic year, we would have said that we were, that we had a good understanding of universal design for learning principles. You know, we had our own kind of local learning design guide that included, you know, discussion or content on access, how to make material accessible and inclusive as we were creating it as we were creating these online learning materials.  And the accessibility tools usually gave us a really good score and maybe just highlighted some things that needed updating or needed fixing. We did need to fix, you know, we didn't have good all text for images and figures and things like that. When these tools came along first and we learned from that and we fixed that. We had kind of an established way of supporting students that are registered with our disability and learning support service in the university. So we kind of had a good solid method already for, you know, giving or supporting students with exam accommodations with assessment accommodations. We would sort of try to be as proactive as possible in terms of contacting those students at the start of the year and making sure they know who they can contact and that they can contact us if they're registered conditions or impairments were causing them to not be able to get their assignments done on time. And that kind of thing. And that was that was the story up until this academic year, which is kind of the it's the the reason that we were talking to you is at the in the first part of this academic year, we ran into some issues where where we realized we had to take a step back and reflect and look a bit more of what we were doing and how we were doing it. So I'll hand over to Sophia for this slide. I can take it from here. Thanks, James. And yeah, so as James was saying, you know, we did have and we have a good understanding of UDL principles. And we did have a good communication system with the support systems available in DCU for our students with registered conditions or impairments. And but obviously some feedback from the students and ongoing conversations with the students shed light on some areas that still needed a bit of work. And really just highlighted for us the gaps in our own knowledge around Universal Design for Learning and also how we can improve our modules overall to increase that level of accessibility and inclusion for our students. And in terms of what James was saying, we already did have a good understanding of alt text and using alt text to make sure that all of the videos that we provided had subtitles. But once these conversations started happening at the beginning of this academic year, there were other changes that needed to be implemented before undertaking some of the bulkier work that Sophia is going to be talking about towards the end of this presentation. So some of the implemented changes that we did is we created kind of a handbook for teaching staff around accessible and inclusive online learning experiences for the students. We included far more information around UDL in this sort of handbook, even though a lot of the staff who would have started with us would have been provided kind of introductory training when they started working with the DCU connected programs. So in this handbook we looked at inclusive teaching practices. So for example, the most of our contact areas of the students are via Zoom. So in terms of making the Zoom room inclusive, obviously you want to be turning on those closed captions for students with any hearing impairments. But also just to allow multiple ways for the students to engage during the Zoom tutorial. So if you are asking students to put stuff in a chat box, make sure that you also allow for the opportunity to have an oral discussion about it, or perhaps maybe throw up the blackboard for them to write on as well. So that there's always various ways that they can engage during class time. And then in terms of the asynchronous material, how can we make that more inclusive? And how many ways can we get them to engage in terms of the asynchronous stuff? And again, that kind of leads into what Sophia is going to be talking about later on. But developing accessible documents, so all the kind of basic stuff around how to ensure that your Microsoft Word documents are accessible, that your PowerPoints are accessible, and PDFs as well, because we would use a lot of PDFs with the students in the modules. And again, all of this stuff is going to be created by the teaching staff themselves, as opposed to the learning materials that are already been provided. And that would have been kind of new information for these staff members. Loop is our virtual learning environment, so how can we create accessible content in Loop? And again, as I said, they're about Zoom. And the last part there in the handbook is just supporting students on the autism spectrum. And for this, we got a staff training from our OT in DCU. So there's a little image there of our training with our OT. And again, these are just little changes that we were implementing throughout the year to try and incorporate the informal feedback that we were receiving from the students as a way to support our students while we were undertaking this research project as well. So that brings us to the current study, and I'll pass over to Sophia for this. Thank you, Chloe. So as James and Chloe have outlined, you know, there were a number of aspects within our modules that were really pointed out to us from our students in the form of feedback. And this is where our current study stems from. The feedback was really spontaneous from our students, and it was, you know, as some aspect that would already be mentioned there, but one of the issues that was outlined or pointed out to us was an issue around assistive technology, not being compatible with some of the features, for example, on Zoom or better, that our, the way we were using Zoom was not compatible with those assistive technology, meaning that some students were really left out or were not able to fully participate in the synchronous activities. But there were other issues, for example, around the asynchronous activities such as they use the forums and for some students, in particular students, neurodiverse students, the use of these forums, which would be one of the most important ways our students and our part-time staff interact for these students using these forums would be too overwhelming. The amount of information shared of these forums would be too much, and also the way it would be organized within them would be too much. And another thing that would be pointed out to us was around the way certain activities would be structured, or even how much structure these students were looking for or needing. So this then led us to pose and reflect really on the way, on our ways, and really question what we were doing. And our first step was really that then design the study and go look for further feedback in the form of interviews and focus groups. So we conducted a number of interviews with our students, with our staff, and also with a member of staff that we might call friends within the university. So staff from DLSS, for example, or other stakeholders that would be able to help us in the current study. And the way that we see them as stakeholders is really as co-designers of the online learning material, of the structure, and of the problems as well. So if you want to move on to the next slide, thank you. So our preliminary findings so far, and also then the implementations that we are in the process of getting out. One of the things that we were doing is the incorporation of a weekly schedule at the beginning of the academic year. So, and this is really to address the issue that pointed out to us by some of the students around the need for more structure. So this was, again, part of the feedback that we received. The other thing that we are implementing is creating a separate module communication, a module discussion area within the module page separate from the forums. So our, as I was saying, the forums are the most, one of the main ways our students and staff communicate with one another, but this can be a bit well. And so what we then proposed to implement was that of creating an alternative mode of communication where the important information is simply streamlined. So the students don't have to necessarily engage with the forums when it becomes a little bit too much for them. Another implementation is that of providing information about student services available on all the assignment briefs. And this is something that we received as feedback from students themselves. And what they found was that sometimes it was difficult for them to find information. So on our side, we thought that we were providing lots of information and that we were providing it in a very clear way that this information was easy to find. So students actually pointed out to us that this information should be made available kind of everywhere, including on all the assignments briefs so that they don't have to go looking somewhere else when they are, for example, preparing for assignments. And along with that, we're also including this information about accessibility and inclusion and about the services that are available on every page of every module on the loop courses. So again, this is the idea or the need that is addressed there is that of making this information really easily, more easily accessible for students. But also as some of our neurodiverse students pointed out to us is also to normalize the discussion about accessibility and inclusion amongst all students, not just neurodiverse students or students with these difficulties. So these are some of the implementations that were carried out based on the findings so far. So, and on that we would like to then open really open this as a conversation really we would like to get some feedback and thoughts from from all of you based on your experience on with accessibility and inclusion, including the issues that you are facing or maybe facing and possibly some of your solutions that you have come up with or that you have implemented. And just on that note as well. Thanks, Sophia. I know that people are going to be, I suppose, commenting from YouTube as well. So if anybody wants to throw in their feedback or thoughts or your own experience with accessibility and inclusion through your own practices, feel free to. And I suppose in the meantime, I can kind of just quickly recap on on some of the, the, I suppose, unique points in terms of what we do here in DCU, because these these implementations are work really well in our learning model. Well, we hope they will anyway. And that's because, you know, what our learning model is quite unique in the sense that we don't have those weekly lectures. So of course, bringing in a weekly schedule at the beginning of the year would feel like almost too much if you're in a situation where you are providing weekly classes, or there is some sort of schedule already made into made into the module.  So it can be very difficult for students, neurodiverse students, but also our other students as well to have that schedule in mind and to be disciplined enough to make sure that they're doing the readings in between the classes. So something like this, perhaps in their first year at a foundational level, I think was something that came up to be quite beneficial. And then in, in terms of separating the module communication from the module discussion areas. And this year, I think that was quite problematic, simply because of the sheer numbers of students that were taken in some of the modules. So if, if we do have a neurodiverse student who is trying to keep up with various conversations on a forum, where there are over 150 students registered on this. And this is their way of communicating with their with the teaching staff between classes. You can imagine how much traffic is starting to generate on these forums as well. So that kind of just provides a bit of a background to, to why these were coming up as problems in the first place. It's funny, it's funny because like I can see that Rob, like that works in the OU where they have 3000 students on a module was there as well. But like they have different ways of organizing that stuff. But you know, but Rob's question there, like what we were talking about again was we had some neurodiverse students who were saying there was just too much noise. There was just too much activity going on in the discussion forums and they weren't, they felt like they couldn't really go in there because it was just too much happening. Now, from the data that we've collected, some of that is seeming like this is a first year, first few months issue, that it was just the overall overwhelm. You know, and once they kind of get used to that, it's, I think they have less of an issue and it's actually, it's a bit more nuanced and complex. What we were, what we were talking about was, and when we talk to the occupational therapist that works in DCU and we were talking about some of the issues the students were communicating. And we just started talking, but she was like, OK, so tell me about the discussion forums and we were saying, well, the discussion forums is where a lot of the activity happens. And she was like, what activity? And then we started naming all the different types of activity, staff talking to students, students talking to students, students sharing resources, staff talking about, you know, this is the, this is what's coming up in the tutorial, this is what you should be studying. And it was just basically the too many, too many things. She was like, that's a lot of different things all happening in the one place in the one kind of tool. And so we started thinking about that. And one of the things the students were saying was if they remember that there was some information communicated about the progress of the module, it's somewhere in the discussion forum. But then they're spending time going through different posts trying to find it. So what we were saying was that we would try to take out these sort of communications about what is happening in the module, you know, and we were going to put that more in the announcements forum. The students can't reply to those. So it would be easier to go there and see this is what's going on without having to go into the discussion forum where there's all sorts of different discussions happening. And the discussion forums will be kept for where you're actually wanting discussion and that we would make a distinction between those kinds of communications, like telling people what's going on and actually seeking discussion. So that if a neurodiverse student is feeling overwhelmed by what's going on in the discussion forums, they at least could go to the announcements area and just see what's going on. That's kind of connected to the schedule as well. That like we're just trying to see how can we provide more explicit structure or explicit communication about like this is the flow of the module. Because the way we have it now we're expecting students to find information or follow information in certain ways. And some of the students were saying that that is that is not that's causing that's not working for them. So that's what we were trying to we were trying to solve that there. Oh, we've got another question from Kate or it's not a question that's a comment. Yeah. Yeah, that came that came up as well. I think in the overall tweaked package that we would be given to the staff on, you know, this is how we're thinking of tweaking the use of the discussion forums, the weekly wrap up would be something that we would advocate for as well. And because like again, we've seen that in the extra work that we've been doing, looking at the literature, looking at other people's toolkits, looking at best practice guides, that seems to be something as well, you know. And we have another comment from Rob here for you. Keep those keep those comments coming. Yes, sorry. The noise to signal concept is interesting, probably a good principle for all learners. I had a question about the structure and I was just wondering, did that comment about structure come up in other aspects of online learning or was it just about the communication and forums. The structure was and the structure was a neurodiverse student who needs to have a sense of a lot of organization for where they're going. They they wanted more of that and I in the past we've taken more of an approach of trying to give the students all the tools and then trying to get them to do it themselves and actually used to be part of a first assignment but that's kind of gone over time. But really at this point we kind of were looking at that and going, you know, we actually do do it in some of the later modules that are more complex, but, you know, we should. Okay, at least in the foundation modules. I think we need we do need to do that we do need to sort of say, here's at least an exemplar that you can follow if you like optionally, or else you hear here's the tools and you can do it yourself to suit your kind of the way you want to do it. But here is the here is our kind of one idea about how you can progress through the module. Now that student was actually doing it themselves but looking for validation of what they had done. And but but again in the data collection it was more complex and and it did seem like it was because everything was so new there was so many different things at the start of first year. They needed that then, you know, so that they didn't have, you know, so that they could actually get going. Whereas it seems like in next year, they wouldn't need that level of explicit sort of this is what you should be doing week to week or they'll do it themselves and they won't feel as challenged by doing that. Now that they understand the system and they understand how everything works. So I think we will initially focus that those efforts on first year modules. And if I can add something there is really, you know, for our students. And again, this is James was saying, but there's more to first year students. It's really also the learning on how to relate to not just all the amount of information that goes on etc. But also how to approach the learning material because the amount of synchronous activities is limited over the academic year. So it's really up to the student to engage with the learning material. And for us, as James was saying, on one end, we, you know, we used to provide to encourage students to develop their own structure around this, especially in the form of an assignment kind of really a study schedule and build a study schedule for themselves. But then there was also the idea, well, they should also be independent and we should let them do their own thing. But as James was saying, for first year students were alive, especially them from your other students, this approach is just to becomes overwhelming. It's just too overwhelming. So helping them to give them an idea of how they might break down the learning material in chunks that are actually manageable week by week. So that's where the weekly schedule really comes in. But as James was saying, we also are aware that we need to provide flexibility around this because our students have all different lives and work families etc. So we also need to make sure that we provide that flexibility where everybody feels that they can actually work freely without schedule. Without that schedule becoming overwhelming for them. So it's going to be a fine line there in terms of, you know, providing structure for the structure that is manageable at the same time. Thank you very much. We could go another half hour talking about some other bits and bobs there. Well, we don't have any other comments or questions at the moment. So can I sneak in a question just about the staff experience of this because, you know, sometimes when staff are. This is my experience is that showing staff the sort of assistive assistive technologies that are available is not only transformative sometimes to this. What the staff are producing but also the staff's own experience of using IT and things like that. And I just wondered if anything, if you got comments from the staff on how this has changed their way of working or teaching. It was Sophia, do you want to do answer that first because I don't do frontline teaching and Sophia does. Well, I mean, so far, not much has changed in terms of IT especially.  So, and the response has been quite positive. I mean, our, our, you know, each and stuff is quite responsive to, to, to this, to this request, but also they're very used to providing students with support as much as possible. So they're very open to all of this. And, you know, it doesn't mean a struggle as such, you know, now some of these implementations like bringing in, for example, the weekly or wrap up or, you know, summarizing points on the forums, these implementations are still, you know, we're still working on them. I mean, you need to see how that might work out, but I'm expecting that that will not be be an issue will not be a problem. You know, so, yeah, I think, I think there's, for me, I'm seeing less things around technology. We were already sort of like advanced users of zoom background settings, you know, like really getting in there is like what if what causes problems if you turn this on how do you need to have everything set up to have the recording come out the way you want it with the transcript and everything. And for me it's been more about from for myself and I've seen it with others in terms of challenging some aspects of our mindset even first like I've been sold on UDL for years but still, you know, you're going through the UDL course and it's kind of like, okay, why were we resisting giving exemplar essays, you know, or giving exemplar example, you know, we had some pedagogical argument for X, Y or Z, but when you go full till and look at what UDL is recommending, UDL is recommending doing that. And it's kind of like, okay, let's take a step back and try and examine what pedagogical assumption that is coming for the resistance to that was coming from, you know, and again, like even some of the stuff we're talking about. We resisted giving a week by week example now again it's because of the flexibility is because of you could study in different ways but, you know, at a point you have to go we're going to have to drop that idea and maybe just go with what the UDL advice is saying, you know, and take that as the way to go. So I think for a couple of people, like people struggle with, if we're saying we're going to give additional direction, like how much direction is too much direction, you know, how much direction is not allowing the student to do X, Y and Z, you know, like trying to find that trying to feel comfortable in there.  And I think that's a great place to end the session. I just wanted to thank our presenters today, Sophia, Deans and Chloe. Chloe was having some issues. Yeah, so we lost her at the end, but please thank Chloe as well and I want to thank everyone for your questions and you can continue the chat on Discord server. But for now, that is us for this session. So sorry, thank you so much, Sophia and Deans. Thanks, everyone.


All right. And that was it. Thank you man. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you for driving up and you know, I don't know what possessed you but that's okay. Thank you so much for allowing us to interview you sir. We are big fans. Yes. Admittedly newer fans. Just found out about you. With someone wearing a newer shirt I believe. You win. Exactly. But all of our subscribers are huge.   That's what we found. That's how we found out about you. We watched your video online. It's called horse running. That was our first exposure. And I felt like I had to talk to you immediately. So thank you so much for allowing us to... Oh hey. It's a pleasure. I mean, glad that we could make it happen. Yes. With all the staunch schedules. Yes. Is it schedule or schedule? I think it depends on how formal you want to sound. I've even forgotten what it is in India now. Yeah. I think it's... We say schedule but I think really... In India we say timetable. That works. So we have a couple questions for you. We did ask a friend of ours, his name is Tashara Law. He runs the Indian Jam project. I don't know if you've ever heard of that. He's an Indian and he takes classical Indian instruments and puts them into western songs like the Dark Knight, the composition and different stuff like that. And so he actually helped us out because you're one of his idols. And so all the smart questions will be from him. Yes. And all the other ones will be from us. So you'll be able to know the difference quite easily. I'll pick the smart one. Well, we're admittedly embarrassed to say that we are only recently exposed to who you are. I'm just still looking for myself. A friend of mine, you've met but haven't worked with his Pedro Aostas, who specifically said greetings to you. But when I was talking with him, he said, yeah, anybody in world music or classical knows the maestro. And one of the things that we're really passionate about is seeing people in America become more aware of artistry from India. And so it's genuinely embarrassing. We know Ravi Shankar, but the fact that we would not know. How important is it for you that Americans would be made more aware of Indian artistry and especially, for example, we're just finding out about it. Well, I'm not going to limit it to just Indian artistry. I mean, there's music from all over the planet. That's special, the culture, the tradition. I mean, way longer and way deeper than the United States. I mean, the United States for 300 years. And you talk about Indonesia has a gamelan tradition of a 2000 year old and India 2000, whatnot in China and Japan and everybody. But the thing is, I think what defines us and makes us adhere to someone else. I mean, and special to other people in the world is our culture, our tradition, and what that means to us and how that projects us to the rest of the world.  But then that's what you will be people sitting in a conference room and so on and everything. It's not about your culture and tradition anymore. Right. And so one thing that India became well known for, and I'm talking about before India became an economic power at this point, we were like a fourth world country at that time. And the people still flock to India because of their history, their culture, their tradition, the meditation, the spiritual energy that it projected, the music, everything yoga. That's people went for that. And that's Indian culture. That's what we all grow up with. And that's what, you know, makes us the humans we are. And that's what also makes other people from all over the world respect us. So it's very important that not only India, but in America, people understand the culture and tradition of every other place. Like, for instance, I'm playing with Bill Affleck, the banjo player. How many of how many people know that banjo comes from Africa? I just learned that just now. Hey, cool. You're a great teacher. We always learn something new. Here we go. Absolutely. And there it is. I mean, so there's a lot of our culture in America, which actually is not American, it comes from somewhere else. And it's best to go look out there and connect the dots and plug into the roots where it all comes from. It just makes people in America that much more better, that much more worldly, that much more panoramic in their view. And so it's very important that this happens. And I'm glad that the efforts of Ravi Shankar, a great man, and the guy who drummed with him for all those 30 years was my father. Your father, yes. And so they collectively made it possible for people to look at India in a different way. And now it has, of course, become Bollywood and all the business people and the Ambani's and this and that and everything. And the guy built the most expensive house in the world, a billion dollar house in Mumbai. A billion dollar house. A billion dollar house in Mumbai. A billion dollar house. You bought that house? No, I didn't. I actually... I can't wait to see it. I drove by it and felt rich for a second. I'm just driving by it. It gave me the more of the wealth. Absolutely. I soaked it in and went home and looked at my place and it all kind of disappeared. But that's how it happened. But anyway, so there it is. In your answer to your question, yes. America should look at the world out there, not through how much money they have, what kind of armies they have, how many times they send rockets to the moon or whatever, but what culture they represent, what their tradition is. And so the humanness of that place. That's great. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm not a musician. He is musician. That's your problem. Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. But we've seen quite a few of your videos now and what I'm actually astonished by is the fact that... I know you say that in Indian music it's very spontaneous when you're playing. It doesn't look like you're thinking at all when you're playing. Okay. Is that the case? Is it kind of just your hands do whatever they want? Well, I tell you, I'm sweating buckets while I'm playing. It's like, God, I hope I get this right. Really? Oh, yeah. While you're performing. While you're performing. Interesting. What's interesting about improvising is that when you come up with a thought, a new thought, and you put it into action, and it saves a simple idea and you play it, the fun thing is that you can hover around it for a little bit until something new strikes you. And then when it strikes you, insert that in. So that's the fun about improv.  So that's when things go a little oary for you. I mean, when I play with Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer and these people that are playing tonight, we have a bit organized arrangement for the songs. And there's very few little pockets in there where you can just go and do your thing. And do your thing and talk to each other. Yeah. And in that you better have your files in the right order, the memory chip properly cleaned and re-booted. If not, then you're in trouble. Yeah. Well, it's very impressive because it looks like it's just done with ease and the second nature. Oh yeah, you're smiling and everything. I got this. Yeah, I know what you're doing. But in the meantime, I wish this comes through properly. Wow. Yeah, because the last one we were watching, the last video we saw of you playing, I had two thoughts. And the first one was, you're an artist who seems like from intuition to application, it's just sometimes, like he said, there's not even a thought process. It's just intuition to application.  Yeah. And you've gone through every possible combination and permutation, musically speaking, and have played with so many zillions of musicians. So their thought process have lined up inside of you. So it is possible for me to be more, what should I say, impulsive. Yeah. It is absolutely possible.  Right. If I don't, because I've been doing it for so long, it is possible for me to bank and glide. Make a correction. Yeah, make corrections. And to make corrections, I can just grab on to tried and true. You know, there's like a 500 different things that have been done before. And they're all there, ready. And will kind of relate to stuff that you're doing. You just pick on that and hang on for dear life like life jacket. And it works. Yeah. Well, you are, for me, I've never witnessed a person who has such mastery over an instrument at the level that you do. We've made comparisons to our exposure to instrumental mastery that we've watched people like with the electric guitar or people who master the piano, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix, some of the classical cellists and everybody else. I've not witnessed anybody who, from my perception, had greater mastery over an instrument, even dancers in their instruments than what I've watched from you. Well, not to get serious about it, but, I mean, it's a relationship with your instrument. That's what it is. I mean, in India, we definitely believe that each instrument has a relationship with the instrumentor. That's clear when you're playing. That's very clear. But it's not a relationship of me, master, you, horse, and I command you. Right. There is a spirit inside of the instrument. We definitely believe so. And what you end up doing for the first 15, 20 years of your life is trying to establish a relationship with that instrument. Wow, what a great statement. And when you do that, the instrument is ready to, you know, do your bidding. Because your friends, your brothers, your husband and wife, whatever you are, and your relationship with it, that's why you see so many musicians traveling and they're so careful with their instrument. They want to make sure that it's okay, it's packed right, and it's, you know, all that. And it's simply because it's, half of it is me, half of it is the instrument. If it decides to not respond today, I'm dead in water. I have no idea where I'm going. I'm up the creek with pedal. Yeah. So, yeah. And so that is what I believe happens. And when I'm playing on stage, I am totally convinced that I'm not going to be hung out to dry by my instrument, the spirit there. Yeah. That, you know, it'll come to my rescue if it needed. So I'm happy to just jump into any kind of fray, move in any kind of area, jump down the waterfall, whatever, you know, or take a flight. Yeah. And it's fine. Is Tableau something you think anyone could play or should they have a natural affinity or giftedness toward it? Do you personally think? Tableau as a traditional instrument from India, playing all the traditional repertoire and stuff, not so easy, but as a percussion instrument. Yes. Anybody can play it. Yeah. It's like a tableau player, like me, can play vanguards or play congos, you know. Because they all have a relationship and percussion. Right. So in that sense, you can take all that technique and just transpose it onto the tableau because it's a percussion instrument.  Yeah, it's a good player. I need to sound like everybody's saying it. Just get on the drum and just kind of, you know, find your way.  And, you know, you hit a couple of notes and it kind of sounds right. You know what the notes are. You can hit it. Yeah. So, same thing with tableau. Great comparison. So yes. But to play the repertoire, then you need to get some information inside of you. Yeah. And that needs to happen. Anything about tabla, its history, its repertoire and all that stuff can be learned in a couple of years. But to be able to practice, get it up to specs to the point where you can actually do something with it, that may take some time. I would imagine that's thousands of hours of work. Yeah, I'm still looking on some stuff. Yeah, I bet. I bet. This is from Tashar. He says, now that you're considered a master of the art form, what are you hoping to achieve with your artistry and your influence? But that's the problem. Everybody thinks I'm a master. I don't. And that makes things easier for me. Yeah. Absolutely, I would. You know, it's like, I'm down here. You guys think I'm up there, but no, I still got a ways to go. Yeah. But the thing, my father always told me, don't try to be a master. Just try to be a good student and you'll get by just fine. Great. And when it comes to art and culture and creativity, all you could be is a student. Because there's every day something new to learn.  Just recently. Yeah. I mean, so it's new. And you just found out about Banjo coming from Africa. Right? Just a couple of minutes ago, yeah. It's just freshly arrived, right? Yeah. So, I mean, people think I'm a master, but I really don't have a lot to learn. I mean, there's some vice man who said that when he was told a great musician, my story, you were perfect today. And he said, friend, I haven't played good enough to quit yet. And that's a profound statement. That's a very profound statement. If you think you've done the best you can, you might as well hang up your boots. Yeah. And you're done with it. Right. So it's never the best. It's always striving for the best. Yeah. So that's what, you can be best for today, but tomorrow you'll listen to it and say, I could have done that better. Yeah. And so I just feel that I'm learning and that's what drives so many musicians to wanting to learn more. I mean, when George Harrison sells millions and millions of records, he still feels he needs to learn more and expand his horizons. And so he goes to Ravi Shankar to study Siddharth. Right. He doesn't need to. Right. But the thirst to learn more and make himself that much more better and converse a little bit more in different languages on his instrument. Brings him there. John McLaughlin, same thing. Charles Lloyd, same thing. John Coltrane, same thing. All these people, you know, they feel the need to learn more. And so they'll be the first to tell you they're not masters. They're just students. And that's what all of us are in. And as long as we keep that in our head and in our minds, things are not as daunting.  You're like force to be able to say something or play something profound every time. Right. Yeah.  Right. But you can. And if you're just learning and going forward. And so that may be a cop out to some people, but that's what it is. It's a fact. I think I know the answer but I don't want to presume of these options, composing, recording, performing. You have one that's a preference bar none that you like the most or they equal. What's your answer? I would, my guess would be performing. Your guess is correct. Performing is the easiest. Yeah. That would be, easiest and I would guess the most rewarding because of the experience being so organic and in the moment with the people they're appreciating. Yeah. Yeah. The applause is nice. We have a little bit of ego. Yeah. Just a little bit of ego. Just a little bit of ego. Not me. Not you. Not him at all. Of course not. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah. I mean, we all want to be appreciated. We all want to be loved. We enjoy a little bit of applause and everything is there. So yes, for me, performing Indian music, that's the fun part simply because it's something I grew up with. It's home. It's a comfort zone. So it's great to be able to do that. When I get into, you know, on the stage with, say, Harvey Hancock or with John McLaughlin or Bill Fleck and all these guys or with the symphony orchestra, it's very challenging because now I've got to step out of that garb that I'm wearing as an Indian and do these other things and so wear these other hats and therefore be subjected to the rules that those things bring to you. And so that's more challenging or composing for a film is challenging because, you know, you're now responsible for putting into play and bringing to blossom someone else's idea and thought as a music composer and so those challenges are there and so yes, performing and performing, especially Indian music, great. Yeah. As an American who loves classic rock, this is just a curiosity. Were there any western musicians that inspired you growing up or who are your favorite people to listen to? Well, I used to walk around with my with my boot box. Heck yeah, you did. On the streets of Bombay listening to Come On Baby like my fire. Yeah. Yeah. So I listened to the doors. I was listening to the Grateful Dead. I was listening to Jefferson Starship. Yes. Quicksilver Messenger Service with John Cipollino, the guitarist. I don't even know that one. I don't even know that one. See? Yeah. There's something new. There's something new everyday. I was listening to all those guys. I was listening to Miles. I was listening to, you know, and so. Yeah, so genre, not just where you were all over. No, but there was one period where it was just rock and roll. Rock and roll. Yeah. It was, you know, like your big brother and the holding company. Yes. Yeah. I was listening to Janis Chaplin or, you know, Jimmy, of course. Yeah. Ah, Jimmy. Yeah. I was listening to Jimmy and all these guys. I mean, that was that was an interesting eardrum popping moment in my life. Yeah. I have to say, you know, boombox right there. I was the only one in the neighborhood who had a boombox. Really? First of all. And then here, I'm walking down the street playing the boombox. It's distorting because it's small. Yeah, that one. But you've got it up there. Yeah. Got it up here. Yeah. Boom. And people are looking at me strange like, what's wrong with this kid? Yeah. You didn't care. You were just... Why isn't he listening to Latha Mangeshka? Yeah. What's going on? All those guys, he's listening to, what's this, you know, this noise? Anyway, but that's, absolutely. Yeah.  And I have to say, I wanted to play drums. I did want to play drums. Like, be in a rock band. Be in a rock band. Yeah. Do you ever play drums? Who's the greatest drummer of all time? Who is the greatest? Yeah. I mean, it depends on, you mean rock and roll. Rock and roll. Like, rock and roll drummer. What I would know. Oh, my God. Do you know Mainsley Dunbar? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Do you know Ginger Baker? Yes. Okay. These guys love. You know, Ginger Baker is like, he just passed away. We mentioned those are names that we've always mentioned at the top of the list. Stuart. Yeah. Yeah. These are guys. There was one movie that came out called Coliteo Scope. It was a movie called Coliteo Scope. You know it. Yeah, I didn't see him. And I think Mainsley Dunbar was the one who did the score for it. I didn't see this. It was a fairly psychedelic score, but the drums were, like, very special in there. Yeah. Did you see the film recently, Whiplash? Yeah. Did you enjoy that one? I thought the movie was good. All the jazz people were thinking that, you know, the jazz world is not properly presented in that sense. But it wasn't about really jazz. It's about these two characters. Exactly. And if you got past the jazz thing, then you really enjoyed the movie. And someone pointed that out to me because I was thinking the same thing. But no, it's about that story. Yeah. It's a great movie. The score is great, but the score with the Birdman. The score with Birdman? That was one of the best films in a long time for us. That's one of the best Trump scores I ever heard. Yes. And you know who did it? It was my pal Antonio Sanchez. I did not know that. Now you know that. Yeah. Antonio Sanchez is really one of the great drummers of our time. He, of course, the director of the movie is a man from Mexico. And so Antonio Sanchez and Antonio Sanchez. Was he actually on the kit in those shots when they went through? Yes, he is. That was actually him. That was him on the kit? Yeah. At the Oscars he played it. Okay. But of course it wasn't, the score wasn't, did not qualify to be chosen. But in all other festivals or something, it won. Yeah. But not at the Oscar. But it was really a great score. One of the best songs of drums that I ever saw. That's one of our favorite films. We love that film. I love that film. And Michael Keaton was good. Whitney? Yeah. That's one of our favorite films. Love. We left the theater when that movie was over. We were like, okay, so that was the best picture of the year? Yeah. And it was. It was. It was. You've collaborated with obviously a ton of people. Is there anybody that you haven't collaborated with? Western or Indian that you'd like to collaborate with? Well, apart from the fact that I'm still trying to get better and better with the collaborations that I am in. Because the more you play with them, the more you get to know them. And things open up and reveal themselves. And the conversation gets deeper and more words appear and all that. So I'm still playing with John McLaughlin, 40 years down the road. I'm still now making a record with Mickey Hart of the Grateful Dead. We've been working so long. And I'm still working with a lot of Indian musicians that I've been working since like 35, 40 years. And the relationship just blossoms further and further and further. But yeah, I mean, there are a lot of people. I just recently started working with symphony orchestras. And I was commissioned to write a tabla concerto. We've heard about that. Yeah, which is like, that's never been done, hasn't it? That's never been done. So I wrote one and then it started performing. And the last time it was done in Florence and Zubin Mehta, the great conductor, conducted it. And it was great to have that honor. It was just fabulous. So that's a new challenge for me that's come forth. And in the last five or six years, I kind of came back to working with Herbie Hancock. We kind of crossed paths in the 70s. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, in those days, there were big festivals that took place in Europe all over. So bands from here, mostly jazz bands, went to Europe and spent like two months there touring and playing all over the place. And what the promoters used to do is like they would line up three bands or four bands, book and airplane, without those, and fly them from place to place to place to place and have them play in festivals. You know, one day of those four bands. Right. And so one of those four bands was us. Our band was called Shakti with John McLaughlin. And then there was Herbie Hancock's band. Okay. Then there was a band called Weather Report. It was a band with Joe Savinall and Wayne Shorter and Jacob Astorius. One of the top bands of that time, Weather Report. And the other one was a band called Billy Cobham George Duke Band. And these were the four bands that traveled at the same time. And we would just be opening for each other. And sometimes there were others that would join us like certain days it would be Carlos Santana's band would come in. Just people like that. That's awesome. So one band was playing and while we were in the back like playing ping pong and food is being cooked and all that kind of stuff would happen. But so at that time I did some work with Herbie and stuff but recently we got together again. And we started like four or five years ago we did a couple of tours. And now Herbie's new record I got a chance to be able to put some stuff on it. So that's happening. Awesome. So I'm really looking forward to seeing where that goes and what that spawns. Yeah. And so yeah I'm really into it. And this we left like Edgar Mayard I think is new. Yeah. We're very looking forward to hearing it. So yeah me too. Yeah. So to finish up around the break and the lip. Yeah we have a we have lightning rapid fire rapid questions. Oh my god. Yeah. So just right off the top there are going to be some silly ones. So sorry. Favorite musician today? Me. Yes. Great. Favorite Indian actor? Me. Oh yes. You know I've acted in movies. What? Where? What's the matter for you? What's the matter for you? Come on. Yeah. Favorite Indian film besides the one you're in? Yeah. Favorite Indian film. A comedy called Pardosan. Okay we gotta watch that one. That's never been read. No it's never been read. Suggested. All the actors in the movie are comedians. Okay. We'll look it up. We gotta look it up. It's a great comedy. One of the best comedies ever.  Yeah. It's their fault. Okay. Favorite American actor? Favorite American actor. Or British. Western actor. Western actor. Western actor. Yeah. I don't know but I mean I think I would probably have to go with what's his name? Oh my god. Corbin Miles. That's him. That's him. That's him. That was a fantastic guy. That was a great guy. That was great. Okay now the thing is actors I mean male and female are both kind of considered actors. Male or female? Male or female. Okay the Meryl Streep. There you go. That's fantastic. Rock and roll. Favorite American film. Favorite American film would have to be Wuthering Heights. Oh. Great call. My wife's in love with you. Okay. Biggest pet peeve. Huh? Biggest pet peeve. Something that annoys you. It's like a big... Something that annoys you. Yeah. Because how many clip in their nails or... Actually what annoys me is we... Bot holes on the road. Welcome to LA. LA. Totally agree with you. Coffee or chai? Coffee. Hey. Although I sold chai. You sold chai? Did you? Yeah for 20 years I sold Taj Mahal tea on television. We didn't do enough research. Did ads? Yeah no. We were looking at the guy who said all sorts of things. Okay. I did ads for TV ads. Did you do any ads for Hajmola? Because that's been really big for us. Yeah. Who? Hajmola. I actually did one. Did you really? Yeah there was an ad that I was sitting in an airplane and this lady was sitting next to me and saying, are you sake who says younger brother? Because I mean I'm supposed to have Hajmola and I'm supposed to be you know. So... Wow. I gotta find that. So I said no. I'm sorry I'm sake. You said wow you look so young. Yeah. That's great. That's awesome.  The favorite thing about touring? Food. Awesome. Good. What's your favorite thing about touring? Cold food. Yeah. Food that's like not prepared right. What's an instrument you wish you could play? God. Actually I really love to play the tabla. I think this is the best instrument that I can. You know there used to be somebody who would ask a piano, a great piano player, you know that okay if you were to not play piano which instrument would you play? And he said tabla. And he was asked why? He said well because he thinks that it's one of the most complete instrument out there in the world. It is an amazing instrument. But I would like to be able to reverse that thought and be able to play the piano. I can play a little bit but... I was going to say the composition. You can teach each other. Yeah. You can play the piano. Oh my god. I'm not right. I'm right. You're right stuff with piano. So yeah but it's like... Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. I get this. Yeah. And last question this round. What's the hardest thing about playing tabla? There's no hard thing about playing tabla. It's all joy and happiness. That's beautiful. That's great. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you allowing us to sit down and talk with you. We really... And thank you for buying a new shirt. You're very welcome.  It is a run joke. It was picked out and made quite funny but thank you so much. Very much at work to listening to your concert. Thank you so much. Thanks for coming by.


Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the class. Sorry I missed last week. I was not keeping too well, so I couldn't make it to class. But good to be back and we will take things forward today. Let's take a moment to pray and welcome to all our online students as well. Is everything okay online, video, audio, everything's good? Everything's good? Fine. Okay. So let's take a moment to pray and then we will get started. Can somebody please pray with the class and we'll start? Our dear Heavenly Father, Lord, we come before You, Lord, Father, God, Jesus. We thank You for this, dear Lord, Father. We thank You, Lord, Father, for bringing us all together. Lord, Father, to listen to You, Lord, Father, to receive from Your Spirit, Lord, Father, God, Jesus, as we are going forward, Lord, Father, into our classes, Lord, Father, Jesus. We just submit our minds, our hearts, Lord, Father, our entire being into Your hands, Lord, Father, God, Jesus. You take control over us, Lord, Father. Help us not to be distracted, Lord, Father, but help us, Lord, Father, to receive everything that You are showing into our lives, Lord, Father, Jesus. We pray that whatever You are showing into our lives, Lord, Father, it will multiply and it will grow, Lord, Father. Jesus, come and have Your ways in our lives, Jesus. We just give this time, Lord, Father, into Your hands, in Jesus' mighty precious name, we pray. Amen. Amen. All right. So today, we are going to move forward. Let me share, if you look at the table of contents, we will look at things that we need to go forward with. So we have completed to lesson number nine, the Bible is Authenticity and Eucharistic, and we are now moving into lesson number 10. So we're going to spend some time talking about the person of Jesus Christ. So lesson 10, 11, 12, about the Lord Jesus Himself and why Jesus, answering some important questions, about Jesus. Why Jesus is unique, right? Why do we say there is salvation only in Jesus? Why do we say that? And we need to be clear in our minds that Jesus is unique. Why we are saying that? Then we also want to answer a related question about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How can we be sure that Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? We were not there. Now, we are not eyewitnesses. We are not anywhere close to when it happened. Here we are 2,000 years later, and we are saying Jesus rose from the dead. That makes our faith very unique, because there is no other faith that claims that there, whoever, the founder or important person, in that faith rose from the dead. Somebody else claims that they can all say, look, this is where the person is buried. You can put flowers here. But we are the ones who are saying, Jesus rose from the dead. How can you say that when we were not eyewitnesses? So on what basis do we have conviction? Looking with the information that we have, right? Then a little bit about Salvation in Jesus, how we present that message. And then we want to, in Lesson 13 and 14, we want to talk about, so how do we communicate Jesus with somebody from a Hindu faith and somebody from a Muslim faith? Just share some thoughts. Now, you may have covered some of this in first year course on lifestyle evangelism, right? So you may have covered some of it, but it's good just to refresh ourselves in that. Then, so that's one section that we are focusing on Jesus and our faith in Jesus and how we communicate that faith to two of the world's biggest religions. How do we, people from that? Then we move to other things. Like we will talk about suffering. We'll talk about different social issues. The questions are many different issues. We'll address that very quickly. And then we'll just have some time for open questions if there are any, right? So let's go to Lesson number 10, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. So first of all, we must recognize that the historicity of Christ is indisputable, right? The very fact that all of human history is centered around this person, you know, before Christ and after his death, right? Now, of course, people have in, you know, maybe the last 20 years, they've tried to change that and say, you know, before the common era and after the common era, they try to change it a bit. And so some of the modern work literary works and so using AD and BC, they will use BC and before the common era, so BCE and I'm not sure what else he used the common era, CE, common era. So they kind of just changed that a bit. But up until, you know, maybe 20 years ago, the way history was divided was around the person of Jesus Christ himself, right? His life and his death. And historians living in that time record the historicity of Christ. But there was this man who lived and who did all these things, right? And these are non-biblical, right? Outside of the Bible, right? So nobody can say, hey, Jesus, just a story, not just a story, he's a historic, he was there in history, right? Historically, it's been recorded. I mentioned a few in our notes here, there are of course, there are many more, at least 19 ancient sources, historical sources that refer to Jesus Christ as a real person. So the historicity of Jesus is proven, it is indisputable, cannot be questioned. There was this person who lived Jesus Christ. Now, the question we have to answer is, why is Jesus absolutely unique? Oh, yeah, there have been other religious leaders. And even today, there are many, you know, religious leaders who come up, start some new religion or some new movement, all kinds of things are happening all the time, you know, new ideas, new things. And of course, today, people may be very influential and have big following if they are example, good coaches. You know, there are some very famous coaches, life coaches that tell you how to live life, motivational thing kind of, and they'll have huge follow all of it. Or people could be influential if they are, you know, very famous actors and so on and so forth. So they form their own thing, or sometimes they're TV personalities. You know, they have a TV show, which is a global, all over the world, people are listening to them and then they begin to influence people in so many ways. So we have so many different kinds of people these days. Going back in time, 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ. Why is he so different? Why is he so unique? What makes Jesus unique? So we want to, I've listed this out in nine points. And I wanted to keep this in mind so that depending on who you're speaking to, you can present a few of these. I'm not saying for every person, listen to me, I'll give you nine points, it's not like that. Depending on who you're speaking to, right? One or more of these points of differentiation will be important, okay? But just keep that in mind, right? So number one is Christ's claim for himself. See, there are many leaders or religious leaders who will not dare to make these kinds of claims for themselves. They'll say, I will teach you how to be good, you be good, you do good, you live life like that, I will just tell you. But they won't have the courage to claim for themselves something unique, right? See, it takes a lot of courage. Either you're lunatic to say, I am the greatest. Suppose somebody says, I am the greatest. Say, hey, something's wrong, he's gone. For somebody to stand up and say, I am the greatest. Or he's genuine, because people in between will not say that, right? Those were normal like day-to-day people, ordinary people. None of us will say, I'm the greatest, no. Or I'm so different, I'm so unique. For somebody to stand up and make certain claims, either they're totally gone, or there's something we have to take them very seriously, right? So think about some of the claims Jesus made for himself. He said, I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world. Before Abraham was, I am the door, I am the good shepherd, I am the resurrection of the life, I am the way, the truth, and the life, and the truth. I mean, these are not simple statements. For somebody to say, I am the way, I am the door, you cannot go in except you come through me. That's a big, big claim. Say, I'm the only, I'm the door. If you want to go to God, you have to come through me. Today you have many religious leaders, then nobody will say, I am the door. You can only go through me. They want other courage to say that. They may say a lot of good things, how to live good life, et cetera, et cetera. But to say, I am the door, I am the way, I am the good shepherd, that's a very big claim. So either his claim was true, or he was a madman, gone. You can't put him in the middle, where all of us are the day to day ordinary people, right? Or if you think about some of the big claims, after his resurrection, he's saying, I am alive. I am the one who died, and I have risen up again. I am Alpha and Omega. I am the root and offspring of David, you know? So the resurrected Jesus is speaking to people. So John, to Paul, to Ananias, so all these people, all these people, I am, this is who I am. When he comes to Thomas Thomas, that's me, see my hands. I am the one who was died on the cross. I am alive, that same Jesus.  I am the same Jesus. So very big claim. So better think about that. Somebody who made these kinds of claims, either we take him seriously, if we take him seriously, we take everything he said seriously. Or we have to reject him completely. No, no, he was a mad man. People simply followed him. God finished, reject everything. We can't say, ah, he's a good teacher. So good teacher, but the same teacher said all these things. I am the door, I am the way, I am the truth. So if you want his teachings or you take, if you take all of his teachings, just don't take a few things. He said some nice things. No, if you really believe, you have to believe everything of what he said. And these are the claims, right? So we have to think about that, you know? So for some people, this may be a valid point, very simple, very logical. This is what he claims. You like his, you like his teaching, very good. You like the things he taught, very good. But the same person also said these things. So you either accept everything he said, or you have to reject. You can't be in between. So the same Jesus, like we said, he claimed his pre-existence. He said, you know, ah, we are with it. Before Abraham was, I am in John chapter eight. This is on page 61. Before Abraham was, I am. He said, I and my father are one, you know? So these are very big claims. And he also spoke about his pre-existence. He says, father glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world war. So he's saying, I was with you there even before anything was created. So pre-existence. So these are all he claims, right? Second is, so to our knowledge, no other man, no other spiritual leader, no other religious leader has made such claims. Nobody else can dare say this. Nobody else said, hey, before the world war, I came. I was there. Nobody, nobody is there to claim that. If anybody is claimed, they put them in mental asylum, finished locked. Finished this, this person is really good. But something different with Jesus. Secondly, what the Bible itself says about Jesus. So first, what he claimed. Second, the rest of the Bible, the Bible is, what does the Bible claim about the deity of Christ? The Bible itself is telling us that he is God. John one in the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. The word was God. He was with God and through him, everything was made. Philippians two, in the beginning, he was in the form of God. That means he was in the likeness of God. He had all the attributes of deity. So he's not a created being, but he was a being who had everything of God. All the attributes of God. So the Bible presents Jesus as deity. And I've been able to see other references here on the top of page 62, where you can see very clearly that Jesus is referred to as God. So there is example, Jehovah's Witnesses and some other, you know, what we would refer to as cults who do not believe in the deity of Christ. They will call themselves Christians. They'll say, who are you Christian? I'm Christian. But if you look further, they don't believe in the deity of Christ. So to be careful. Ah, some people don't. Yeah. So to be careful, because on the surface, if you ask, are you Christian? Yeah, I'm Christian. You believe in Jesus? Yeah, I believe in Jesus. But what do you believe about Jesus? Jehovah's Witnesses, they believe Jesus was a created being like Lucifer, like Lucifer's counterpart. So that is very wrong. So you ask, are you Christian? Yes. You believe in Jesus? Yes. What do you believe about Jesus? God. Right? So we have to be careful, right? So for when we are talking to example, if you're an integer was witnesses, you have to remember these scriptures because that is the main point of difference. They say Jesus is not God. He's a created being. But look at all these scriptures. These scriptures are referring to him as the mighty God. Isaiah 9.6. He is the mighty God. Microphied to before, from everlasting to everlasting, from everlasting to God. So hey, this is Jesus. The Bible is talking about Jesus. It's referring to him as mighty God, referring to him as the one who created everything, right? So the Bible, when the Bible presents Jesus, the Bible is presenting him as God. This is important because most of the world, they hear the term Son of God, Son of Mary. Christmas everybody knows what happened. Jesus was born. Who is the Son of Mary? Sure. That is true. Not wrong, right? He was born through Mary. But they're only looking at his humanity. Son of Mary was born. But learning was born, Merry Christmas. But the same Bible is telling us this is the mighty God. He was with God. He created everything. He became man. But that part, people don't hear or they don't know. They ignore. So why is Jesus unique? Because when the Bible is presenting Jesus, it's presenting God who became man. Nobody else. So we have a lot of religious leaders. Example, I'm just comparing. If you compare Muhammad, prophet Muhammad, he didn't say, I am God. The Quran is not saying, is not saying this is God who became man. No, he's a prophet or any other. But this Jesus is God who became man or any other religious leader, the leader of any movement. We have so many people today. They have great followers, many followers. But they don't say, I'm God. Or the writings will not say, this person is God who became man. In fact, for most people, they're trying to say, this is man who's trying to become God. Man who's trying to become God. He's trying, he gained some enlightenment. He gained, he's become higher than us became. But this is other way. God who became, let's think about it. This is what Jesus was. Can we find someone else like this? There. So, when the Bible is presenting Jesus to us, the Bible not only presents him as God, but the Bible is also saying, there is nobody else, nobody else. The Bible is not saying, this is God who became man and God came also many other times. Bible is very clear. Example, Acts 412, there is no salvation in any other for there is no other name, no other name under heaven, given among men by which we must be saved. Very clear. No salvation in anyone else, it's only in this person. So today you will have lots of writings by religious leaders, they'll say, okay, there are many ways to God. You try anyone. Bible is not saying that. Bible is saying, there's only one way. There is no salvation in any other. So either we have to adopt our choices, either we accept this or we reject it. Either you follow Jesus or you don't. Same thing Timothy Paul writes, he says, there is one God and one mediator between God and man. The man Christ, he says, one mediator. Not many, just one. So the Bible is presenting Jesus as unique. So this is the answer. So Bible is not saying he's one of the answers. You'll get some answers before and you'll get some answers later. No, this is the answer, the only answer. So either we accept or we have to say, okay, I don't believe, fine. No middle ground. So that's another thing we can present. Now, you know, this is very important because we have to learn to say this and we have to learn to say it in love.   They'll ask publicly on global television, everybody's listening. And in some cases, it's been sad that these are Christian leaders, top Christian leaders. But they are asked, do you say that Jesus is the only way they will avoid the question, say something else. And so saying, yes, the Bible says. I'll just quote one or two verses. This is what the Bible says. But they just say, why? Why?  You're on public television, right? So they want to be, you know what, politically correct, they want to just not, but then that is not saying the truth, right? The truth is the Bible says, Jesus is the only way. Our message is Jesus is the only way. So as leaders we have to say that, right? I have to say it in love, say politely, of course, we're not trying to be arrogant, we're not trying to say we are better than you. No, you ask me the truth, I'll tell you the truth, finish. I'll say it gently, say it lovingly.  So we need to be absolutely convinced and speak the truth in love. Number four, the incarnation and words in birth of Christ. So this is very important again, is what makes Jesus unique. So like we said, the Bible is presenting Jesus as God and the Bible is presenting Jesus as God who became man and he was born through a virgin birth. I want you to think about this, that this thought, just the thought of a virgin giving birth is not normal. It's not normal. So even it's not just not normal for our thing because saying today, okay, we know so much science, we know biology, medicine, all that we know. But even 2,000 years ago, it was not normal. Nobody will think, oh, or let's say go back to Isaiah's time, 2,700 years ago when Isaiah was prophesied. Even in Isaiah's time, it is not an normal thing. It's not like everywhere else, you're seeing some virgin giving birth. No, no. So no, it is not thought of. And Isaiah prophesied, a virgin will give birth and his name will be called Emmanuel. So it's very unique, very unique. Even that time and even now, very unique. So no other religious leader can claim that. On my birth certificate, I have only mother's name. I'm just joking, but I have only mother, no father. I'm just joking. But nobody else can claim that. That I was born by the supernatural power of God. Nobody. But on the spiritual side, this is also very important, very important because, and we can summarize it like this, that, you know, if you understand it like this, Adam put us in subjection to sin, Satan, death. So every human being born from Adam was born under sin, under Satan, in subjection to death. Every human being, man and woman, born under that. So to redeem us, somebody must be born who's not subject to sin, Satan and death. But he has to be human being because one human being put us under, only a human being can put us out. But that human being must not be subject to sin, Satan, death. How is that possible? Only way for God to become man. So when God becomes man, this man will not be subject to sin, Satan, death. And this man can pull us out. So that is Jesus. So the virgin birth is very important because this man was sinless, born by the power of God, not through the natural human race. He's a human being, but different. God became man and was conceived by the power of God. So that's why Jesus is unique. That's why the virgin birth is very important. So sometimes even today, even Christians, are you a Christian? Yes, I'm a Christian. You believe in the virgin birth? That was just a story, just a Christmas story. No, no, no, it's not a Christmas story. It is very important, very important. Because without that, Jesus would not be qualified to redeem us. He would be like everybody else, born under sin, Satan, and death. So the virgin birth is very important. It is because God, by his power, caused that conception and then the human body to be formed. It was God, by his power, doing it, not just so very important. So not just a Christmas story on Angel K or no, no, no. Very important, the virgin birth. So what makes Jesus unique? It's what makes him qualified to be our redeemer, our Savior. So we can extend this thought a little bit. And again, we have to be careful how we share this. Okay, so you have to share it very lovingly. And this is especially relevant when you're speaking to people from Hinduism, Hindu background, why? Because they also have the concepts or the idea of God becoming man. Right? So they call avatar. Avatar is God came in human form. So they also have the concepts, okay? Almost same. We are saying incarnation, they are saying avatar. Saying God became man, yeah, for us also, God's, one of the gods became human avatar. Then we have to very gently, even to think through, okay, fine. Let us think about this. The differences in Hindu philosophy, God came 11 times. 11, avatar, avatar. So they have, I think, correctly, forever. At least 11 avatars. We are saying only one incarnation. Okay, let us think about this, right? Of course, we have to think about it. I mean, we share this lovingly, but. So the point is this, why 11 times? Does that mean the previous 10 times were failure? If the previous 10 times were failure, that means previous 10 times was not God. Because God cannot fail. He shouldn't fail, others are not God. And what guarantees 11th time he succeeded? We don't know. See? But what we are saying is, in the incarnation, there was a one, complete, perfect, absolute work that was done. Why? Because this was God who became man. He cannot fail. God cannot fail. He came, he finished the work, offered the free gift of self. He rose up from the dead. One, one time, only one time. And did it for every human being. It's not like for Chinese, we have to want Chinese God for each continent. It's not like God, if God created all the people. And one, one time is enough. So, again, we're not trying to be rude. We're just saying, let us think about this. So that's why the incarnation and the words in birth of Jesus is very unique, also very important. It's not just some other man. This is God who became man. And one, one incarnation, he finished the work. Work is finished. He rose up and back. So that is the difference between the incarnation and the avatars in Hinduism. Yeah. Number five, his life, work, teaching and impact on history. So why is Jesus so unique? And he said, well, okay, let us think about this. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, long time, 2,000 years ago. There were other philosophers who lived. In fact, even before Jesus, say Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, they're all 300 years before Jesus, they lived. Around the same place if they lived. So there were many philosophers, many thinkers, many... Jesus, his life was so simple and so short. He never did anything big, meaning he never wrote a book. He never formed an organization. He was not part of some big religious system. Like these philosophers, they were part of, you know, what we call as the university of their day. They were recognized philosophers. Jesus was nothing, just a simple carpenter. And he actually did his work only for three years. The others for the whole lifetime, all lifetime they did what they did. Jesus only did three years, just three years. Very simple. So you think, okay, if there was anybody who should have become unknown very fast, it would have been Jesus. If there was any person who had to become unknown, compared to all these philosophers, leaders, others. Any person, Jesus must have been the first one to be, oh, we don't know anything about him. Only three years, he never wrote a book, never did anything big, not part of any big system. Nothing, he was just walking here and there, like a carpenter. That's how very simple. So if there was anyone who should have just been forgotten by history, it should have been Jesus. Because he really never did anything big, in the sense of, that could have made his name last, never. He never even built one house, house of Jesus, nothing. Nothing, but all so many famous people before him, after him, lived. Today, those names are almost not known. Those names are almost not known. Nobody goes, you know, church of Socrates. Church of Plato, nobody formed nothing, not even one.  But today, if you look at Jesus, look at the Christian faith, it is like nothing else. Even in our day, people become famous, but they are forgotten very quickly, you know. Even given with all the technology we have, with all the means we have, people become famous. The example, musicians, or movie stars, whatever, so many politicians, they have all the means. You can write books, you can produce movies, you can do, they have all the means. But they're very quickly forgotten. Nobody knows, but Jesus, it just increases. So we say something is very different. Can we point to any other person in history who's had such a big influence and continues to have such a big influence on human life? And he never wrote a book, never sang a song, never had a thing. Just three simple years. That means, and the thing is, many people have tried to erase his name.  Even in communist countries, you know, in parts of the world where they have eradicated or they've tried to remove religion completely, in those places, you have strong believers in Jesus. So that means there's something very different, something very unique that is the spirit of God at work in the name of Jesus. Even some of his biggest critics, you'll find, they eventually come to faith in Christ. So let's just do a few more. Number six, or let's say, yeah, his sacrificial death, it's again very unique because no one else said that their greatest work would be done in their death. Whereas for Jesus, his greatest work was done through his death. Yes, he did many things before that. He healed the sick, he cast out devils, he worked miracles. He did all those things. But his greatest work is in his death, on the cross. Nobody else said that, or even did that. That in my death is my greatest work, salvation. And through my death, I'm giving salvation. There is something very different, very unique. And his death was, I mentioned these things here, bottom of page 65, his death was substantially atoning, complete, triumphant, transforming. It's very, you can elaborate on all of these thoughts. Number seven is the resurrection of Christ. Again, here, this is so unique, that Christianity is alive because Christ is alive. And Paul writes, he says, if Christ was dead, our faith is useless. If Christ died and didn't rise from the dead, then our faith is useless, no point. But because he's risen from the dead, our faith has meaning, our faith is real. So the resurrection of Christ, we point out. We'll talk more about that in the next lesson. But this is very unique. This is what makes Jesus very different, that we are saying, hey, he died, but he also rose up after three days, he rose up. That is very important for our faith. And if he did not rise up, our faith is useless. We are acknowledging that. So we are not following a dead religion. I'm not following a dead person. We're following a living Christ. Number eight, that salvation is given to simple faith in Christ. That means the Bible is saying, you believe in Jesus because he made the full provision, you believe in him, you'll have salvation. Very different. As we will see later on, whether in Hinduism, when contrast, it is based on works. You do good works, then you'll have salvation. In contrast, Jesus says, I finished the work, you just believe. And follow me. It'll be clear, salvation. Islam, we don't know. Meaning, if Allah says okay, if Allah is happy with me, I will have salvation. So till the end, I don't know. I will do what I can. I'll follow Islam. And maybe I may even try to give my life as a martyr. In Jihad or whatever, sacrifice. I try even that. But ultimately, I don't know. Allah will decide. So there it is a question mark. In Hinduism, you have to work. But Jesus is saying, I did the work for you. I'm giving you salvation. You can know that you have passed from death to life. You can know. Very different. The last point is that today Jesus changes our lives. He works in our lives. He says, I will come to you. I will come in you by my spirit. And we are being changed by his spirit. So he's working in us. Which again is very different because in so many other philosophies, this is how you can change yourself. We will tell you, do these things. But Jesus says, I will work in you. I will make you a new creation. I will transform you. We have these nine thoughts that we can present. And so in the end either Jesus was a liar just simply said all this. Or like we said, maybe he was lunatic, mad person that he could claim all this or he was a legend, extraordinary person or he was Lord. Let's choose. Right? And if he is Lord and what we are saying is because he is truly God all these things have happened. Okay. So let's go for a break and after break think about these things. We'll take up questions. I know we don't have time for questions right now. But right after the break we'll take any questions on these these nine points and then we'll go forward. Okay. See you in 10 minutes. Thank you.


Okay, so hi everybody. Welcome to the last MPC session of this Eurogrip. We have three talks. The first one is Round Optimal Byzantine Agreement by Diana Guinea, Vipul Goyal and Czenda Luzan and Czenda is presenting. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, okay. Yeah, so thanks for the introduction. I'm very happy to be here today in the Round Optimality session of MPC. So I'm going to spend the next 20 minutes talking about Byzantine Agreement, which is a fundamental building block in the design of MPC protocols. And I'm going to focus on round efficiency and hopefully convince you that one can achieve VA in a very efficient way and yet conceptually simple manner. So what is Byzantine Agreement? So this is a distributed protocol among N parties, a bunch of parties, each party has its own input, and they want to jointly compute an output with two guarantees. The first guarantee is that all the honest parties have to output the same value. And the second guarantee is, well, if all honest parties input the same value X, then this is the value that they should jointly output. Of course, these two guarantees need to hold even when a subset of the parties are corrupted. Well, achieving each of these guarantees independently is very easy, right, but achieving both at the same time is not trivial. So in this paper, we focus on the synchronous model, right, so we consider the setting where parties have synchronized clocks and they are connected via a complete network of point to point authenticated channels with some known delay. And in this setting, we typically describe the protocol as proceeding in rounds. And yeah, so basically when someone sends a message in some round, then it's guaranteed to be delivered before the next round. And in this synchronous model, then crucial efficiency metric is the round complexity or the round efficiency, right? So how many rounds do we need to achieve Byzantine Agreement? So let's look at the landscape. So we know for a long time that for deterministic protocols, Byzantine agreements can be achieved in T plus one rounds, right? Where T here is the corruption threshold. And yeah, we've known this for a long time and this is not very good, right, because it means that the round complexity is linear in the number of parties, right, for usual thresholds and over three and over two, right? Luckily, we also know that for the case of randomized protocols, the landscape is actually much better. We know that, well, the longer you run a protocol, the higher the probability to achieve Byzantine agreement. And from the feasibility side, we know that if you run a protocol for something like C times R rounds where C is a constant, then we can, we know solutions that achieve Byzantine agreement with very high probability, right? Except with probability two to the minus R. And this was initially achieved by Feldman and Michali, right? And since then, there have been a significant line of works improving this constant under different assumptions and also with different corruption thresholds and so on, right? We also know since almost 40 years, the lower bound by Carlin and Yao, that basically says something like if you have like a linear number of corruptions, then in R rounds, any be a protocol in curse at least some error that has the form R to the minus R, something like that. So the question is therefore apparent here. So can we close this gap, right? Can we go from two to the minus R to R to the minus R? And this was not known even for any linear number of corruptions and not even for static corruption. And this is what we do in this work. So we present a protocol that essentially closes this gap for any fraction of corruptions up to n half. And we also support adaptive corruptions. So note that the threshold here is up to one minus epsilon. So there is still a small gap. And the constant here actually depends on this epsilon. So you can think about it as one over epsilon or something like that. So before we get into this, how do we solve this? Let me start with a little bit of background and this is going to explain a bit, one of the most prominent paradigms to this design BA protocols. This was initially introduced by Rabin and many, many other people, right? And this is, I refer to it as the seminal paradigm. The first thing we do is we run a weak form of agreement, right? Which I call here weak consensus, also known as cruisers agreement. And the idea here is just imagine that parties start with an input bit and we are going to expand the domain to a domain of size three where parties can output either a bit or bottom. And bottom is here intuitively to capture situations in which parties don't know what to output, right? So what does weak consensus achieve? Well, validity is exactly the same as dissenting agreement. If all the honest parties input the same bit, then this is the bit that they output, both for zero and one, but consistency is weakened slightly. So it is fine that some parties output zero and bottom, it's also fine that some parties output one and bottom, right? There is a little bit of tickling, but it's not allowed that some honest parties output zero and other honest parties output one. And this is depicted in this picture, right? In this array of three positions. You can look at it as like the honest parties output a value in the green region, right? So, believe me, weak consensus can be achieved in a very simple way. A constant number of rounds even deterministically. So, and then this paradigm basically bootstraps this goes from weak consensus to full dissenting agreement via a common coin. So how does this paradigm work? Well, we first run weak consensus. Each party obtains one of these three values, zero, one or bottom, and then we flip a common coin. And for this talk, I'm going to assume that the common coin is completely random, uniform value between zero and one, and that everyone gets the same coin value. So the paradigm works as follows. We first run weak consensus. We all jointly flip a coin. And if you don't know what to do with your output, meaning your output of weak consensus was bottom, then you simply take the value of the coin. Otherwise, you have some confidence, right? Then you stick to this value. So if your output of weak consensus was either zero one, you stick to it. If it was bottom, you take the coin value. And then we repeat, right? So the effect of this paradigm is basically, well, if all honest parties started from the same input. Then after weak consensus, then they all output that input bit and no one ever listens to the coin and therefore this value gets propagated throughout all iterations. And that's what we want. So if parties start with different values, at least weak consistency guarantees that the output of honest parties lie within two, within the green region, right? Two consecutive slots in the picture. So it can be something like zero and bottom. And in this case, if we are lucky, if the coin hits zero, then we reach agreement, right? Because the zero guys stay zero and the bottom guys take the value of the coin, which is zero. And therefore the probability of agreement here is at least one half. And what is important here is that the value, the output value of weak consensus is independent of the value of the coin, right? That's why we are tossing the coin after weak consensus. And at least intuitively, we can think that with this paradigm, it kind of, the iterations are independent, right? And each iteration takes at least two rounds, one for weak consensus, one for the coin, right? So the limitation here is that kind of the best we can achieve is in two rounds, we can achieve agreement with probability one minus two to the minus R. So how can we go beyond this, right? So to break this barrier, what we are going to do is we are going to use like a generalized paradigm that was initially introduced by Pizzi, myself and Los like last year. It's something slightly different. So instead of running a weak consensus protocol, we're going to run a so-called proxensus protocol, which is kind of a generalized primitive, where instead of expanding the input domain to a size three, which is what we do in weak consensus, we're going to expand it to an input, to an output domain of size S, where S is some parameter. And proxensus is going to guarantee again two properties. First one is validity. We're going to look at the S, the domain S as positions within an array of size S, and validity guarantees that if the input is zero, then the output of proxensus is the left most lot, the one in green, right? And if the input is one, then you get the right most lot. And consistency simply says that, well, the outputs of honest parties lie within two consecutive slots. It can be anywhere in the array, but they need to be together, right? And indeed this proxensus primitive generalizes many of the weak agreement primitives that we have seen in the literature, including weak consensus that I've talked about, but also others, graded consensus and so on. So how can we use proxensus to achieve Byzantine agreement? Well, we are going to run the proxensus protocol. This is similar to the seminal paradigm, right? And then we're going to flip a coin, and this time the coin will be multivalued, a value between one to S minus one. And then we are going to run some extraction procedure which based on the output of proxensus and the value of the coin, we are going to extract a bit, right? And in this picture, the extraction procedure is actually very simple. It will only indicate an inner position where we will cut the array. So for example here, if the coin takes value of three, we are going to cut the array at that position. And if the output of proxensus was left, was at the left of this cut, then we are going to interpret that the output of the protocol is zero. And if your output position was at the right, then the output will be one. So why does this work, right? So, first, validity, if all honest parties input the same bit, let's say zero. Then this means by validity of proxensus, all the honest parties output the left most lot. And because we are only cutting at an inner position, it doesn't matter where you cut, all the honest parties will lie to the left side, meaning all honest parties output zero. It's similar with one, right? Why do we have consistency? Well, if you look at the picture, proxensus guarantees that the output of honest parties lie within two consecutive slots, which means that there is only one coin value that will cause disagreement. No matter where you cut, most of the coins will push all the parties to the same side. And therefore, like in this picture, the bad coin would be C equals two, right? And like this, we can reach agreement except with probability one over the domain of the coin, right? One over S minus one. Okay, so the trick here will be, can we expand long enough, right? Can we achieve R to the R slots, right? Within R rounds. And in that case, just by flipping one coin, we reach, we achieve PA and that's it, we are done, right? We don't need to iterate or anything. Only one coin will be enough. And this is exactly what we do in this paper. We have a protocol that achieve an expansion in the first step to R to the R slots in a very efficient way. So I'm going to talk about this expansion now. So how does this work? So the parties look at this huge array of R to the R values. And depending on their input, they are going to position themselves in one side or the other. So if the input was zero, they are going to position themselves on the leftmost array. No one in green. And if the input is one, they are going to position themselves there. And the idea is, okay, the honest parties are still very far away, right? But we are going to do a bunch of iterations and we are going to try to bring the honest parties together, right? They need to be next to each other to achieve proc sensors. So how does this work exactly? So, well, our first idea would be, I'm going to just distribute my position in the array to everyone. I'm going to say I'm in the leftmost lot to everyone, right? And then we are going to take the average somehow. And of course, like this, if everyone was honest, then we immediately reach the same slot, right, because we are taking an average on the same set of values, right? This doesn't work because obviously, like some parties are cheating, right? So some parties can send different values to other parties and then we take an average over different sets. And then we end up at different positions, right? But yeah, then we just need to distribute the value in a bit more clever way and do the average in a bit more clever way. And this is how we kind of solve it, right? So how are we going to distribute the value? So to distribute the value, we are going to use like also a weak form of agreement primitive, right? She's kind of a proc sensors primitive also, but for a single sender. And you can also look at it as a kind of a great gas protocol for those that know about this. And the idea is that if the sender is honest, then this, and he tries to distribute a position X, then everyone gets X. However, if he's dishonest, then some parties get some position Y and others parties get some what I call Y tilde, like looks like Y. Or so the honest outputs lie within two consecutive slots, right? Just like in proc sensors, either the honest parties get Y and Y tilde or honest parties get Y tilde and bottom, right? And then what is interesting here is that the honest parties will also keep track of who is cheating, right? And here, basically, you know that if you receive a Y tilde or a bottom, you know that the sender is cheating, right? And we are going to exploit this. That will be a key in our protocol. So the distribute step will also guarantee that if everyone knows, everyone locally recognizes the sender as corrupted, then the best the sender can do is just to distribute the bottom. This will be a guarantee of the distribute step. So how does the protocol work? Well, first, the parties distribute this, the position where they are, and now we take some sort of average. Maybe if you don't need to understand how this average exactly works, but I'm going to say a few words. So the way this average works is essentially you look at the values that you got and values. The bottom values are useless, so you just throw them away, right? These are the set C0. And you know these guys are corrupted, right? C0 corrupted parties. So from the remaining ones, the non-bottom values, you are going to do an average, but you're going to discard T minus C0 at the top and T minus C0 at the bottom. The idea here is that if you do an average on the remaining values, then you're actually doing an average over an interval that is kind of a sub-interval of the honest interval that you have in the beginning. So for example, if after discarding bottom values you have this array, then you discard top and bottom and the remaining ones you do an average. Yeah, okay, so here is an example of the protocol. You distribute the protocol to everyone. You do this discarding and trimming. Next iteration, you again distribute your new position. You discard and trim and so on. And the effect of this is because every time you do an average over an interval that is a subset of the initial honest interval, then validity will be guaranteed. Right? If all honest parties start with zero and you do an average of a sub-interval of zero, then it's zero, right? And consistency is slightly more tricky, right? The point here is that how much do parties convert? And the point is that the best adversary can do is to transmit these y-tildas and bottoms because in that case some honest parties will take y-tilde into account and other honest parties will get bottom in which case they will discard this value, right? That's the only case where the adversary can cause a little bit of disagreement. And if you look closely, what happens is that then all the honest parties will recognize the sender as corrupted if he sends y-tilde and bottom. And therefore in the next iteration, Pi is identified by all honest parties and then the next time he tries to distribute something, he can only distribute bottom. So it's kind of like you can only harm the protocol a little bit, but only once, right? And that will be the key. So the picture of the protocol will be something like this. The honest parties start at very different positions in the beginning and then they converge. And the amount of convergence depends on how much the corrupted parties try to cheat, but they can only do once, right? And in the paper, we can show that on average we can shrink the interval by a factor of 1 over r and therefore achieve our result.  There are some numbers like for small thresholds of corruptions, our protocol is actually pretty fast, I would say, but for large corruptions there are some hidden constants, right? This one over epsilon factor that is hidden. Okay. Thank you. Questions? I have a question. Maybe I miss it. What assumptions are you using? Yeah, in the paper we need to use like a really good coin, right? That's crucial. So we need some trusted setup for threshold signatures or unique threshold signatures, something like that. Okay, so another question is when the threshold is optimal, with optimal threshold, the error probability is just too high. So the best you can achieve with BA is n over 2, right? We have this small gap, 1 minus epsilon n over 2, right? So please close this gap, right? Okay, thank you. Let's thank the speaker again. Thank you.