I can't help but feel that these criticisms, like many others of the book, are mostly down to cultural misunderstanding. The writing style of the book is deeply Japanese and that's off-putting for many, myself included. But for some, it's to the point where the forest is missed for the trees. I've read a few translations of it and some do a better job at conveying the idea than others, but they all feel clunky without the cultural context.

A good example of what I mean is your first suggestion, choosing a less triggering explanation for teleology. The idea of trigger words as we understand them, and the need to shield people from them, is not a universal cultural phenomenon. The suggestion feels a bit like visiting a country where they drive on the left side of the road and suggesting they try and drive on the right instead. Maybe the suggestion is good! But maybe not, without cultural context, the suggestion reads mostly like just asking for things to be made more familiar to you.

Thanks for the link! I read through it and agree with most of your points, especially the parts about presence and separation of tasks.

I personally liked the intellectual aspect of it, though I also agree that the emotional component should be there as well.