--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > >>> > > wrote: > > > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>>> The "cleanest" religions and spiritual > >>>> traditions I've found in history are those who didn't > >>>> allow this, and expected their teachers -- *including* > >>>> the primary teacher or guru -- to work for a living just > >>>> like everybody else, and do their teaching for free. > >>>> > >>> Just out of curiosity, why should spiritual > >>> teaching be the only kind of teaching that is > >>> not considered to be a job deserving of > >>> compensation? > >>> > >> Just out of curiosity (since it's only my > >> opinion and my opinions are always in flux), > >> I'll answer. :-) > >> > >> The short answer is, "For the good of the > >> student." The somewhat longer answer is, "For > >> the good of the student, by ensuring the highest > >> possible state of attention in the teacher." > >> > > > > 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. > > > > > Oh no, keep in mind that a lot of the people who went on TTCs were very > bright and many already had careers or went on to ones that paid quite > well. In a lot of businesses its not the hours you put in but what gets > done that is important in the higher positions. In these positions you > get paid a salary and not by the hour. So if I were to get something > that might take someone else a week to do in three days then I would > have two days to do what I want if that included teaching. Those salary > levels are usually 100K+ too. Plenty to take care of a family.
Oh yes, in fact. As I pointed out to Barty, you need to keep in mind that there aren't a whole lot of such cushy jobs, and many people aren't qualified for the ones there are. If you insist spiritual teachers must teach for free by getting a high-paying job that leaves them lots of free time, you're restricting the pool of teachers to folks who are highly educated and trained to start with, which in effect means people from relatively well-to-do backgrounds for the most part.
