Oh no,
I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness."
He is using the view of the earth from a position on high through a telescope as an example of Oneness...complete with the idea that all borders between countries, etc, are merely conceptual. Yes, that is true, the divisions between countries, the various assigned names, are just that, assigned concepts, but there are distinctions that DO still appear within the appearing earth.... and sure, it's possible to conceptually collapse all those distinction/boundaries in favor of a focus that just sees the earth/planet as One, singular thing/object/appearance... the collapse of those conceptual boundaries, which leaves just the appearance of one/undivided/unified earth planet, though, is not what "fundamental Oneness" is pointing to.
To see (realize) Oneness, seeing must be happening from prior to/beyond the realm of appearance, & as he does aptly say at one point, It's isn't WHAT you see, it's the position you are seeing from (or something similar...anyway, I did nod along at that point in agreement!).
It was odd that he said that, but then used the appearance of the world from a position beyond as an example of "Oneness."
The collapse of apparent boundaries relative to something that appears is NOT what "No separation/Oneness" is referencing. In SR, All appearances get seen to be empty and devoid of inherent existence....empty appearance only...transient, devoid of Truth, and it's in that that Oneness is apprehended. We don't need to collapse the appearance of distinction/boundaries as they too are included in that 'emptiness'...and ultimately, in/as "Oneness."
The mistake this dude and ZD make is that they think Oneness is about collapsing the way mind categorizes and draws distinctions between things that appear in the apparent world. None of that is problematic so long as it's seen that all of the appearing world and all it's things, are ephemeral arisings within/to awareness...empty, arising dependent, having no inherent existence of their own.
It's all One, not only renders the distinction between Hawaii and the ocean that surrounds it as appearance only, it also renders the very appearance of the earth as a whole, appearance only.
On one hand he says the wave IS the ocean, but then goes on to say that what is
sitting here is NOT a Catholic, a Jew, etc, not sitting here at war with itself....'there is just unbroken, limitless, eternity in all directions'. It's a context issue I think; He's on one hand, equating the appearance of the 'sitting here person,' with the infinite, but then, denying the apparent/experiential war going in mind, the belief systems of religion, political ideas/afilliations, etc.
He demonstrates why it's so important to see the totality of anything experiential, right down to the most minute, nuanced sense/feeling, as "appearance only."
Absent that, mind continues to try to conceptualize the pointer of Oneness...finding evidence of Oneness IN the appearing world itself.
This bit seemed really off in terms of clarity:
"That is the inheritance that is looking out of your own eyes, those are the gifts that all the buddhas of the past--they worked super, super hard to unfold, unbox...to understand that. If it wasn't for the Buddhas, the rishis the roshis, the zen masters, the sufi masters, the desert fodhers,
if it wasn't for those boys and girls doing their homework and then the homework of the hubbles and Albert Einsteins, the Stephen Hawkins & the Rober Penroses, all those guys doing their homework, today I wouldn't be able to (I, I mean you), sit on my mediation mat, chair or cushion and experience my infinite eternity. So, It's either 100% unbroken, full on, fully connected, there is only one Oneness here, or there isn't. There aren't two ways of sitting on your meditation cushion, that only you sit as a Buddha, as Buddha nature, the Tao, you sit as Allah, Shiva, as Self, I am that I am...."
He's positing all the understandings of past sages and scientists as 'causal' to a present moment of clarity about Truth...?
I hope I'm not about to shit on someone you resonate with, but I found him to be all over the map....constantly shifting context, at times outright contradicting himself and also making that same mistake ZD makes where he erroneously invokes the phenomenal appearance of unity/connection to make the point of "fundamental Oneness." 
(It's the imagined person that says it's "my" story...a personal story).
