The article kind of reminds me of when I practiced Zen. We disatach ourselves from thinking our actions (and every 'thing' else) from the spiritual. Even the "spiritual" people attach themselves as we may feel we should have a special feeling when having a spiritual moment; Zen Buddhist disattach themselves of.
Likewise, what the article is saying about actions. The problem is I agree on both sides. Our spirituality is not "depended" on actions so intent is important. Also the actions are the expressions of our intentions; they work together.
When I was at the Church, that was completely opposite of Zen and the article, but you can really "get" the intent when you do the action rather than seeing it (like bashing).
Its like having intent or belief I want to wash my hair. I sit and dont move a finger because intent is more important. My hair isnt washed, but at least I know my belief, faith, or intent made feel happy that my hair would somehow be cleaned (hope, I guess). Its more important than action.
If I actually washed my hair with or without intent, my hair would still be cleaned regardless my intentions.
Im more focused on the washing so my hair to be cleaned.
Seems like thr article is more concerned with the intent to wash ones hair and thats spirituality, the intent, hope, and belief but not the action itself (thats were I disagree)
--
I dont know if we are saying the same thing or not either. The hair washing is the closest I can get.
The only people who I talk with that understands actions as intentions are Catholics, some Jews I meet online, Muslims in person as well, basically anyone who have formal rituals in their faith. I know the article does not agree with formailities as spirituality.
To me, its more spirituality is not "depended" on rituals (I dont 'have to bow to the sun' but that action, to bow, is my intent even if my thoughts arent there to "show" it)
This might be a case where we were using different words to indicate the same thing. I agree we often don't know someone's motives for any act. We make assumptions based on the act itself and what, if anything, we know of the person. I was writing about the meaning of the act from the frame-of-reference of the actor not the observer.
My outlook was influenced by various writers who looked at motives and action. One example is the story of Moses and Khizr in the Quran. Another example speaking to motives is
Meher Baba's discourse on violence and non-violence.
From these and other sources my mind immediately goes to the motive of the actor.
Sorry for the long post. Its not a rebuttle just a reflection on your views and the article. It was a good read.