--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > "Barty" here. I love it when Judy gets so mad > she can't type. :-) > > Just to provide a counterpoint to what she so > mistakenly says above,
(Which Barry smugly thinks he's refuted but actually has not...) here's what the Rama > guy (even with his many faults) did to try > to help his students get careers that would > allow them the money and freedom to pursue > their spiritual lives. <snip Lenz's program, which sounds admirable as far as it goes> > This is not a career path (or a spiritual path, > for that matter) for everyone, but I firmly > believe that it can be *done* by everyone. > I've seen it done by hundreds. Judy's idea that > this approach to teaching would restrict the > pool of teachers to the well-educated is sheer > educational bias on her part. T'ain't true. > It ain't the "well-educated" who get the well- > paying jobs, it's the people who are *motivated* > who get the well-paying jobs. Says Barry, ignoring my qualifying phrase "for the most part." There are always highly motivated folks who manage to rise above the eight-ball. It's not a matter of "educational bias," of course, but of cold, hard reality: getting a high-paying job with easy hours is a lot easier for those who are well educated to begin with. And for those who have managed to get a good education but are struggling to pay off college loans because they couldn't afford to pay tuition out of pocket, investing substantial amounts of time and money in additional training, especially if they're supporting a family, is going to be exceptionally difficult. Making sacrifices is fine, but you shouldn't *have* to sacrifice family life in order to be a spiritual teacher. That isn't good for your teaching or your students, and it's distinctly not good for your family. <snip> > I still think that financial self-sufficiency > is a good model for the spiritual teacher. Of course it is. It just shouldn't be the sole option. It > avoids so many "down sides" that appear when > you never challenge the assumption that these > teachers somehow "deserve" not to have to work > at a regular job, because what they're doing > is so much more important than what "normal" > people do. Huh, did anybody say this was why spiritual teachers should be compensated? I must have missed it. It certainly isn't what *I* said. What *I* said is that it seems to me spiritual teaching *should be* a "regular job," and that in this regard spiritual teachers "deserve" just what everybody else does: compensation for the time and energy they put into their work, so they can focus on it rather than having to siphon off much of their mental and physical resources to hold down a second, paying job. *If* circumstances are such that you can hold down that second job and do your spiritual teaching as well without excessive strain, fine, that's the ideal and can work nicely for some people. But it shouldn't be a *requirement*, and you certainly shouldn't have to suffer putdowns from obnoxious, elitist brats like Barry if the compensation option is more suitable and productive. You can do "selfless service" just as well if you're being paid for it; the selflessness is in how you do what you do. *Attachment* to the idea of one's own nobility in serving without compensation, however, so one can look down on those who take money--as in Barry's case-- pretty much invalidates the whole thing and may well be a far worse spiritual trap. > *Everyone* is "normal." <duh> In other words, the term "normal" has no meaning.
