Readers and scholars often note that the book’s dialogic form leads to a high degree of repetition and circularity. The same essential pointers—such as the emphasis on the sense of “I Am” and the insistence that one is not the body or mind—recur with only subtle shifts in wording, which some find tedious or redundant. Because the conversations were recorded over time rather than composed as a treatise, the material can feel disjointed, with questions that are not always well contextualized and a flow that seems more episodic than carefully structured. This lack of a systematic, step‑by‑step path leaves some seekers uncertain about how to translate the teachings into a coherent practice.

Another frequent criticism concerns accessibility and clarity. The language is often abstract, paradoxical, and heavily reliant on negation, which can appear cryptic or even contradictory to those unfamiliar with nondual discourse. For newcomers, the combination of dense Advaita terminology, minimal introductory framing, and a non‑linear progression can make the text demanding to approach. Maharaj’s responses sometimes seem logically inconsistent or paradoxical, and without sufficient context, this can generate confusion about what is being affirmed or denied.

The question of translation and cultural context also arises. The talks were originally given in Marathi and translated into English in real time, and critics suggest that nuances of meaning, tone, and technical vocabulary may have been lost or altered in the process. Terms rooted in Indian philosophical and devotional traditions do not always carry their full resonance for readers outside that milieu, and the traditional guru–disciple dynamic is not extensively explained. As a result, some formulations appear idiosyncratic or not fully aligned with classical Advaita Vedānta as it is usually presented in more formal texts.

There are also concerns about the practical dimension of the teaching. The primary instruction—abiding in the sense of being and inquiring into its source—is presented with little elaboration in terms of specific methods, ethical guidelines, or psychological integration. Some critics feel that this emphasis on realization, coupled with sparse attention to emotional or moral development, can foster a kind of spiritual bypassing, where profound-sounding insights are used to sidestep unresolved personal issues. Relatedly, statements about the illusory nature of the world or the absence of a doer can be misread as license for disengagement or irresponsibility when lifted out of their intended context.

Finally, the interpersonal tone and philosophical stance invite mixed responses. Maharaj’s style is famously blunt and at times abrasive, which some regard as a form of uncompromising compassion, but others experience as dismissive of sincere questioning. The strong nondual emphasis can seem to downplay the relative, embodied dimension of human life, leading some readers to view the teaching as overly absolute or rigid. For those seeking a more psychologically nuanced or systematically articulated path, these features can make the book as challenging as it is revered.