IMHO, we need to understand the Western mindset to understand why most of them see this issue differently. 1) Those brought up in the West, or who have acquired a Western world-view seem to think that this book issue is some battle between freedom and repression, which it is not. If you tell them not to do something, they immediately cry out "censorship". The fight against communism and other forms of repression has colored their view of everything else. 2) The tradition in the West since the sixties sexual revolution is that "we must have an open discussion about everything". This extends to sexual matters as well "whats wrong with talking openly about sex?" or "lets give condoms to children instead of telling them not to do it". They don't see anything wrong with discussing Sri Aurobindo's sex life, even though it may seem offensive to Indian sensibilities. 3) There is no natural atmosphere of Bhakti in schools or homes. Prayer in schools is discouraged. Children are focussed on debates, sports and community leadership. That is why they might assume that all the people who oppose the book are being emotional or unreasonable. It is this background of lack of humility or Bhakti that we must consider. As you, RYD, pointed out elsewhere on this blog, when it comes to Integral Yoga, one must apply the principles of "aspiration, rejection and surrender" to every aspect of our life, including the desire to write a book. A person in the course of Sadhana would be expected to change his/her nature and develop a pure heart and mind. If that change had truly happened to this author, this kind of book would not have been written. There is no need to produce syrupy sweet literature but one cannot condone the omissions and distortions. Some of the needless criticisms in the book are going to stick in the mind of some naive reader who might be turned off. This work seems like the equivalent of reducing Napoleon from a great general to a figure of ambivalence and doubt.