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. End of discussion.
<snip> > 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.
