I am not sure how the book and the author got dragged into the discussion of religion and aspiration-rejection-surrender! Nevertheless since we are at it..... The situation and the question about the biographers approach is an interesting one for it evidences the conflict of the historian with that of a disciple. There is also another solution, a fourth way in the clear solution offered by the Gita which includes the greatest gospel of spiritual works in its magnificent synthesis. Those who aspire for a higher life or aspire to live by higher ideals in this battle of life are often confronted with situations that present a dilemma of choices of action that are in stark conflict with each other. Human life for seekers and non-seekers is fraught with such conflicts. We get the clue from the Gita to the solution of the problem of action. In fact, the teaching of the Gita arises out of a situation which involves the inextricable clash of duties. It enjoins us to subordinate the lower in us to the higher. True to the practice of law, a lawyer might seek to defend his client despite knowledge of his guilt. What if something in the lawyer awakens to the recognition of his defense as a deftly woven subterfuge for falsehood and he refuses to defend? The call of the inner oracle stands at a higher level than the call of the practice of law. Shankara's leaving his mother to take Sanyasa and Lord Buddha's leaving his wife, child and kingdom in the quest for Truth are quite consonant with the teaching of the Gita. Persons and personalities aside, the central question in this case is whether the call of the historian is higher and stronger than the call of the disciple. If one's following the call of the disciple - assuming it is stronger - necessitates the relinquishing of the historian, then well, into the bonfire must the call of the historian go. The Gita enjoins us to follow the higher precepts even if they be at the expense and abandonment of the lower in us. No doubt it has to be felt and dictated from within. The underlying tone in the written word - more so in biographies - sometimes reveals or provides a clue to the "call" that the author has responded to, in other words the subjective position of the author in relation to his subject. In this case the call of the historian has clearly taken precedence over the call of the disciple and predominates. Further there also seems to be an effort to be anti-hagiographical and therefore critical. It is remarkable that the author confirms both of these statements. You have put it well that the awakened intelligent eschews barren debates and metaphysical argumentation. The Buddhiyukta, intelligence vigilant and not discursive, not carried or pulled away by the impulsions, emotions and sensations arising in the sense-mind from the contact of the senses with the objects, gets firmly established in a settled peace and equality within. But this cannot be done by the intelligence, it being a formation of nature or Prakriti. Our whole being has to be consecrated and given to Him, "To ME" says Krishna. So the Buddhiyukta or the mind under the firm control of the intelligence requires our putting ourselves in the hands of the Divine.