Then, among these varied denominations, one can find moderately skillful exegetes who will posit dogmatic religious positions diametrically opposed to one another and as contradictory as pacifism vs. militarism and forgiveness vs. revenge. All such positions are always “supported,” if not “sanctified,” by scripture.

Therefore, the practice of spiritual disciplines that are highly visible in but not exclusive to Eastern religions may generate equal numbers of Jewish/Christian/Muslim exegetes who agree and disagree with them, depending upon their particular brand of sectarianism.

Second, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism do not own the rights to “spiritual practices.” Such practices are simply more visible in these religions, where they have been developed from antiquity to highly refined disciplines and form the bases for numerous scriptural treatises. The various schools of yoga of Hinduism, the science of rhythmic breathing, chanting, meditation along the lines of Theraveda vispassana, tantra, all come to mind as practices now being widely studied if not practiced in the West.

But many of these spiritual practices have both exact parallels and analogs in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, especially among the Jewish Kabbalists, the Muslim Sufis, and in the renown monastic orders of Christianity. Greatest among these, perhaps, is the metaphysics that flourished in medieval Europe and later in the Levant, where the use of intellection by religious scholastics was elevated to heights never seen since.

Third, objectively speaking there is no inherent contradiction between personal or individual spiritual practices of the types described above and any religious law or principle contained in the Torah, the New Testament, or the Qu’ran, notwithstanding the dogma or other ecclesiastical sophistry that permeates modern religious discourse.

Modern religions are typically more concerned with temporal power that with spiritual authority, and to the extent any of them or their rabbis, priests, or imams view “Eastern” spiritual practices as a threat to their control, such practices are likely to be condemned. One also should not discount the effect of common bigotry and xenophobia in such condemnations either, given that so many religious activities in modernity appeal to base emotions rather than reason and intellect.

Finally, because true spiritual development is normally an individual and solitary undertaking, these types of spiritual practices may be viewed by those who adhere to religions as inimical to their purpose, since religions and religious activity are normally social and collective, e.g., from the Greek ekklesia or “assembly of people,” and require a certain level of communal interaction, consensus, and conformity to operate effectively.

Dr. William W. Quinn has a doctorate in religion from the University of Chicago and is a practicing Buddhist.