Readers and scholars who admire the text often acknowledge that it also attracts serious criticism on several fronts. One recurring concern is its lack of systematic structure: the teachings appear as spontaneous dialogues rather than as a carefully ordered philosophical treatise, which can make the overall view difficult to grasp and sometimes repetitive. Related to this is the sense that complex nondual ideas are presented in a highly compressed, even “rough,” form, without the detailed scriptural grounding or technical distinctions prized in classical Advaita Vedānta. Traditional teachers sometimes note that this departure from orthodox methodology and terminology can leave important nuances about levels of reality, māyā, and the nature of consciousness underdeveloped.

Another cluster of criticisms focuses on the radical directness of the teaching. The strong emphasis on “You are the Absolute already” and on effortless realization is seen by some as potentially discouraging the gradual work of ethical refinement, meditation, and psychological integration. Critics suggest that such an all-or-nothing approach can foster spiritual bypassing, where lofty nondual ideas are used to sidestep unresolved emotional or personal issues. The insistence on the unreality of the world and statements that can sound like “nothing has ever really happened” may also be misread as a license for apathy, feeding nihilistic or dismissive attitudes toward worldly responsibilities and human suffering.

There are also pedagogical and ethical concerns. Some find the tone in the dialogues—terse, blunt, sometimes sharply dismissive of other paths—unsuitable or even destabilizing for many seekers, especially those who might benefit from more gradual or psychologically attuned methods. The responses to personal and social suffering can appear, to certain readers, insufficiently compassionate or too quickly reduced to metaphysical pointers. Because the dialogues offer little explicit guidance on integrating insight into everyday life, relationships, or trauma, psychologists and contemplative researchers have raised questions about how such radical deconstruction of the personal self might affect those with particular vulnerabilities.

Finally, the text is mediated through translation and editing, which introduces another layer of critique. The original talks in Marathi were rendered into English and shaped into a book, and scholars have pointed out that nuances of language, tone, and cultural context may have been altered or lost in this process. The setting—a specific Indian, village-based milieu—does not always translate seamlessly into the lives of modern readers from very different backgrounds. Some note that the reverential culture surrounding the book can also discourage critical examination, giving the whole enterprise a somewhat hagiographic aura. For many serious students, these criticisms do not negate the value of the work, but they do encourage approaching it with discernment, contextual understanding, and a recognition of both its power and its limits.