It is open to a philosopher to speak differently in different capacities and in the Statesman article I spoke as a critic of yoga, deliberately stressing its demerits, because I had written too much in its praise and people were apt to get a one-sided and therefore incorrect picture of it. I spoke also as a critic of the yogis because the reports of other people's experience and the confirmation of my own revealed that there was far too much disastrous exploitation of gullibility and far too much social parasitism among them. Many readers came to think wrongly that, because I supported the positive beneficial aspects of yoga and praised the concentrative powers of the few genuine yogis, I therefore also supported the negative, harmful, queer, and questionable aspects of yoga and endorsed the numerous exploiters, idlers, idiots, and fanatics in the ranks of yogis. Nevertheless, the Statesman article did not express my considered judgement nor did it represent my complete attitude.
-- Notebooks Category 12: Reflections > Chapter 4 : Reflections On Truth > # 178
