More Facebook . . .
January 18, 2010 A reader thoughtfully emailed me regarding my entry preceding this one on the facebook pages. She offered to help and brought up some points that I felt would be good to address.
First, I have no doubt of the sincerity of the person of the person who did the pages. Their sincerity was never a question for me.
So what was the issue?
Everything I write—on the blog, in books, for talks—is carefully considered. The more serious the material, the more the thought I put into it. I have a responsibility to present principles and information as accurately as I can. If I recommend something, readers deserve to have a good measure of confidence that I have looked carefully into it.
The “my favorites” section gave me much difficulty. As far as I could see, there was no indication someone else had done the pages. So people will think that the "favorites" listed are indeed mine. But there is no assurance that pages under the favorites are consistently — as in 100% — appropriate for a Pure Land Buddhist website. And what others consider appropriate may not accord with what I have been taught and thus wish to pass on to others. So while others can of course include sites as their favorites, they may not be sites I wish to tell everyone are “mine.” (Again, I have not looked at the favorited sites. To read every one would require more time than I can afford to take. So my concerns do not in any way reflect on the specific sites listed.)
When I recommend a website, I have to keep monitoring that site. (When I recommend a book, I have to have read and be comfortable with the whole book.) There is no way to do that when there are many sites. And as another person brought up, what if the favorites in turn have other favorites, etc., etc. Who is doing the monitoring?
Second, the person who offered to help said someone had done a beautiful page as a tribute to her deceased grandfather. I agree that that doing a page as a tribute is a beautiful way to honor someone who has passed away. But it would have been clear to all readers that the deceased person had not done the page. Such a fact was not made clear on the pages under discussion.
Furthermore, as a Buddhist monastic I am supposed to practice humility. Having a personal page on facebook makes me uncomfortable. Other people having pages is fine (including other monastics who are comfortable with the idea). I didn't even write the bio on this blog in the first person. I wasn't comfortable saying, "I did" and "I went." So I wrote something as short as possible and avoided personal pronouns.
It was even a struggle deciding whether to put my photo on this blog. But knowing how I like to see the photo of a book's author, I understood people would get an extra bit of information from the photo so I posted it.
What would have made the pages okay?
One very simple change.
The person could have made their own facebook page and placed the information on it. That way the favorites, the pages, would clearly have been their own.
So simple.
Reader Comments (1)
On close examination, I realized that it couldn’t be Venerable’s post, as it is inconsistent with her publication style. To the public, the page does indicates that Venerable does all the posting, when Venerable’s name and photos are clearly on the page, especially the thumbnail images repeated in every new post throughout the page.
If one is interested to make any post in Facebook, it would be best to post them under one’s own name, rather than assuming someone else’s identity, in this case, Venerable’s.
Then everyone will be happy.
Bee Ho
www.amtbweb.org
www.amitabha-gallery.org