Criticism: I use jargon and twisted arguments on a mundane topic. And that every Swami says that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. And so on.
If anything, I have avoided jargon (i.e. the use of technical language) in my book. I would like to know where I use technical language without explaining it. As far as twisted arguments go, I presume you to mean invalid arguments. If you can point to an invalid argument, you would be identifying a flaw in the book. Unfortunately, you do not provide instances of it. May be, you should try being concrete.
You say that when you finished half of the book, you wondered why every Swami proudly says that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. I cannot explain why you wondered at the mundane topic, but I can tell you that the first half of the book does not talk about this. The first half of the book merely talks about what the western culture did. It does not even provide you with a definition of the word ‘religion’, and there are no hypothesis formulated with respect to the phenomenon that religion is.