Now that we have considered what kinds of teachers there are and how they become what they are called, let us turn our attention to how a real Teaching would look. In addition we will consider what a Teacher may do or not do; a little of why it would or would not be done; and what the point of view of the Teacher is in that process. We can also consider how a teacher may convey what is needed in a given setting.
By putting attention in these areas, you may begin to get a sense of how a Teacher may appear when you approach him, what his work may look like, how to differentiate between a real learning situation and not, and what common qualities and characteristics one can usually find in a Teacher and the Teaching.
First, having said all these things about how a Teacher may look or act, etc., it is equally possible he may do anything or everything differently, and not act at all like we say here. The final decisions are up to the person working, not someone writing in generalities; and certainly not because of the expectations of anyone else. As illustrations, I will give you the following examples.
There are stories of Teachers who have asked great sums for their work. They were generally negatively criticized, and later it may or may not have been found that they were using the money for a needed service. On the other hand, there are some charlatans passing as Teachers that make a very good living from fleecing people who come to them. Along that line there are some Teachers who would not charge any money or ask for donations, and others who would require minimal giving or payment. Sometimes any of these teachers may even do one thing in one setting or with one person and something quite different with another.
The reason a person would do that is because that approach is what is needed in that particular situation. Given another, the approach may be quite different. At one time, years ago, in a class someone was giving, that person requested that people give a donation each time they came. He laid out certain guidelines for doing so.(*) He did this because it was a means or a tool to use for those attending to focus through, and as a result gain or strengthen certain attributes. They could then apply these attributes to other situations.
However, in that class were two people who objected strongly to making any donations. To one potential student, the person said he must pay a certain amount each time or he could not attend. This was done to motivate those attitudes which were causing this particular set of blocks. The other potential student felt less inclined to work and give of himself than to give money. So if he were "forced" into either paying or not attending; even though he had shallow philosophical reasons for thinking paying was not right, he would have reluctantly done so. However, the money was not that important to him, so for him it was required that in addition to a smaller payment than generally requested, he would have to work a few hours each week as a precondition to attend a class. This bothered him much more, and roused attitudes in him that were blocking progress far better than requiring him to pay more money.
Now this person also had a penchant for wanting to discuss spiritual things. He, if left to his desires, would talk and talk incessantly about them. So, as an additional requirement of his work, he was not permitted to discuss or bring up anything of a spiritual nature. All conversation had to be strictly related to the work he was doing or common physical things. He was very ungrounded, and this combination of work/payment and focus on the "mundane" was the best thing for him right then.
There was another person who also attended those classes who had almost no money, yet worked very hard, was in need of money, and not only had no reluctance to give, but tried to give more than what was asked - to his own detriment. He needed balance in the other direction; so for him it was required that he give, but it was modified that he was to give that amount to himself. This of course raised other blocks for him to deal with.
Now if you had come in to that setting and seen only one of those actions or requirements, how would you determine if that was the "right" thing to do - especially because in some ways they were contradictory? And, if you had been aware only of one procedure, would you generalize from that and conclude that it was the overall approach or teaching; and if so was "right" or "wrong"?
The only way through this is by feeling. You would need to put aside your intellect for evaluation and sense if there was something behind the outer action. Even if it was not seen fully, the point is that you would have needed to be open to multiple approaches with the possibility that all were right. Just because a person sets certain guidelines or requirements in general and then acts counter to them in a contradictory manner, it does not necessarily mean that person is acting wrongly.
From the point of view of a Teacher, the most important thing is to provide the appropriate impetus in the right settings that has the potential to act upon the person or group in the right way at that time. He is unconcerned how it is taken by outer eyes or evaluation. Sometimes he will use this as a tool to "drive away" the person who is not ready, or let a person self-select his own leaving. Many times he will also give the means to attune to him or find the path to understanding when encountering opposites or contradictions on one level, but complementary actions on another. The point is that you cannot just generalize from one action or approach. Do you remember the story of the elephant?
In the reference above to the two students in a class, would the person leading it and prescribing the correctives have done the same thing in another situation with another group of students? Doubtful, although possible. Speculation is absolutely worthless here. One really would not know what he would do until faced with the particular situation and people. If another Teacher came in to the same setting, would he have taken a similar approach? Possible, but also doubtful. Again, speculation is worthless. There are many approaches that can achieve the same end result; and that is what we are after - results, not the method to get them. In fact, a person could have taken almost the exact opposite approach and potentially gotten similar results.
In this case, we have discussed only one small aspect of a teaching and how it can be applied in different ways. It is an outer aspect, that of paying money or making a donation for a class. It does not have to be that; it could be anything. The point is that for every activity or process, there is a potential lesson or learning situation that can take place; and that can be done in many ways, some of which might seem contradictory. If we were to multiply this one activity, of which only a few elementary examples are given, by the variety of situations that could take place, and for each one add many different potential actions depending upon the need, we will not be able to generalize very well that a certain approach or method is the way to distinguish a real Teacher from one who is not.
At times a Teacher will take on the attribute of the student that he wishes to bring to that person's attention. By being a mirror and projecting the qualities that are in the way of the student, the result is that it motivates a response, usually negative, and brings those attitudes to the surface. In this way it gives the student the opportunity to become aware that what bothers him are actually his own qualities. This gives him the opportunity to then work on and adjust them.
So in the case of the student who was barred from discussing spiritual things, another Teacher might do just the opposite, and respond to everything, excessively in that manner. There are other approaches, all of which may be equally valid - such as giving concentrations, meditations, recitation, stories, koans, walks, work, and more - any of which could bring about the desired effect. So in evaluating a Teacher, outer process is not a good indicator of what is going on.
(*) These examples can be found as appendices A and B. They are for reference only, and were applicable in those limited situations. If they are applicable for other uses now, that is fine. Appendix A is titled Fee Schedule; while Appendix B is Some Guidelines for Donations.