Wishing for the Best

  What I find interesting in the readings on Buddhism is that the notion of 'karma' is directed less toward actions than it is to intentions. For instance, a person can build something quite enormous as a form of sacred worship, yet that enormous structure doesn't necessarily help the giver unless she has a pure intention: that is, there is a desire to use the structure to spread teachings of buddhadharma or spiritual practice. I often wonder, however: is intention ever enough? Has it not been said by George Bernard Shaw that the road to hell is 'paved with good intentions'? Why, according to Shaw, is "having a good intention" not sufficient? I suppose that answering this question might take me into a discussion on ethics in today's society.
   One of the biggest problems with intention-based ethics is that it is hard to truly discern what my own intentions are, much less someone else's. In fact, there may be complex and deeply mixed motivations for undertaking an action: one might build a monument to help others and acquire a reputation for being a benevolent person. Another example might be the case of someone who fears going to hell or a negative place when they pass on to the next life. Is that person motivated to do good things out of a real sincere wish for others' welfare, or is she or he only trying to avoid an unfortunate fate? It seems that Buddhism accommodates both kinds of intentions by offering different sorts of paths. One path consists in doing things for the sake of bettering one's future conditions to practice and be liberated. Another path is doing things purely for the sake of others' welfare. The latter seems less inhibited by concerns of what will happen to oneself. After all, if I set my goal as the betterment of others, I might become less preoccupied with my own wishes, desires and needs. And paradoxically, if I worry less about the results of what I do, I might in the end be better off for it. These are examples, however, where an intention may not be clearly discerned or even fully recognized in mind.
     Another issue with intention-based ethics is more popular coming from the West: we sometimes hear the expression, 'walk it the way you talk it', or 'put your money where your mouth is.' Somehow, intention has often been characterized as coming before the action rather than arising during an action. The result is that there is an emphasis on result-oriented ethics in today's world. Not only are corporations expecting results, but people are more and more looking to the result rather than to the intention. To take an example: if I simply wish for something to take place, that wish may not translate to action , and might even just remain in the imagination. Wishing without an accompanying action is seen as somehow weak or possibly even hypocritical. It is, after all, very nice to wish to end world hunger, but how does that wish translate to real action?
      I suspect that modern Western ethics will be slow to catch onto the Buddhist notion of making wishes as a form of offering toward other sentient beings. The chief reason is precisely because people don't often trust the power of intention to make things happen. But another reason is that Western philosophy may not yet have found a way to transform the power of words into actions. In Buddhism, there are many practices which form a bridge between language and action. Chanting is one of them, where a practitioner plants the notion of the chant in their heart, and this later shapes the person's outlook and actions in the world. Normally, prayers in Buddhism express vows and intentions. For instance, we have the vow to deliver innumerable sentient beings, cut off endless vexations and master limitless approaches to dharma, finally attaining Buddhahood. If I just mechanically recite these lines, I am probably not going to embody them in life at all.
    But when do words change from being 'empty' or 'dead' to something alive and vibrant in a person's being? I honestly don't know how thoughts and contemplations translate into actions, or what psychological mechanism goes on there. It could be that this kind of question requires further study and investigation into the emergence of an action based on a planted vow, prayer, or intention. For instance, at what point does a person turn a thought into the confidence to do something with that thought? At what point, and under what conditions, does that come to happen? Again, I have no clue, but I suspect that there are definite emotional and psychological stages involved, from the framing of a particular desire to a stated intention or plan to put it into action. One stage might even be an incubation stage, where a person becomes fascinated with an idea but doesn't yet know how to implement it.
   I wonder if the reason why we see so much 'hypocrisy' is that a person is still trying to bring their fascination with an idea into a concrete, embodied form. Until that form or idea is truly internalized, it merely becomes a kind of dry yet interesting statement about how one should behave. But later, when one's allegiance to an idea is fed and sustained, an action naturally arises somewhere down the road. Could this be how vows and intentions truly work--that is, as ways to incubate or sow seeds in the mind for a future action?