--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Answering the only point that needs to be addressed. > Other than that, I've said what I have to say and > you've said what you have to say.
Translation: Answering the only point I can dream up a response to. > End of discussion. Translation: As usual, I didn't think through what I wrote, so I find myself at a loss to deal with questions about it, such as: Not sure why anything you mention wouldn't apply to teachers across the board, both the pitfalls and the benefits of either option. > > The biggest problem I see with the free option > > is that would be much more difficult for a teacher > > who has family responsibilities and therefore a > > lot less free time. Or if they take a job that > > gives them enough free time to teach as well as > > tend to their families, they're likely to be paid > > less than they need for their family's support. > > > > That would tend to limit the field of teachers to > > those who don't have families, and I'm not at all > > sure that would be a good thing for a host of > > reasons, for teachers generally, but *especially* > > spiritual teachers. > > > > Another drawback is that if a teacher has a > > regular job, she can't put all her attention on > > her teaching; she's serving two masters, as it > > were. And the more demanding the regular job, > > the more conflict between the two. > > All of the teachers I have encountered, both > past and present who advocated this approach > were *also* strong proponents of career success, > and tended to urge their students (both married > and single) to enter careers that would provide > them with both the money and the free time to > teach, without it being a strain on them. That > was certainly true for myself and all of the > people I've known who taught for free, including > those with families. And of course high-paying, undemanding jobs that require less than a full week's work are readily available and easy to qualify for by anyone who wants to teach in their spare time. Uh-huh. Here's the rest of what Barry was unable to come up with an answer to: <snip> > Having taught in both situations, I can personally > speak for the benefits of teaching for free. You > have the constant reminder that you *are* doing > what you're doing for free, and *for the benefit > of the student*. The fact that you *are* doing all > this for free keeps this all-important phrase "for > the benefit of the student" an ever-present intent in > your mind. Also, you never have to go through all > the "Is it more important to teach or to eat this > month?" stuff that meditation teachers are so > familiar with. :-) I don't understand. Why would you never have to go through this? Seems to me this would be one of the biggest problems with teaching for free, and not a problem at all if you're being compensated for teaching. <snip> > In short, I think that spiritual teaching should > be done for free because it's better for the > teacher. It allows him to keep himself in a clean, > high, shiny state of attention, and keeps his > intent clean. And *because* his intent is clean, > the students benefit more from the teaching. Again, to the extent that this is valid, I can't for the life of me figure out why it wouldn't apply, in principle, to any kind of teacher. You don't have to be a spiritual teacher for teaching to be a "mission." Or in another sense, all teaching is spiritual on some level. Very few teachers are in it only for the money, for one reason because teaching generally isn't paid all that well to begin with. Which is why it seems rather odious to me to suggest that teachers teach for money because they're too lazy to "get a real job."
