He mentions cracking a nut, in there somewhere. It's what I believe too: that the words of scripture are like the shell of a nut. They preserve the essence of truth that can't really be expressed in words. It's one reason I don't think scripture can be changed to suit contemporary values. He is a genuinely spiritual person, talking about his own journey, imo. There's no sense of him being a career preacher. There are many ways of trying to express spiritual ideas and laws, different words, but they all lead the same way and away from bigotry and intolerance in the name of religion? But this is where there can be problems. For instance where he quotes Jesus as saying: "It is not I but the Father that is in me that does these works" what Jesus really said was: "The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me." There is a difference there. Still, as you say, it shouldn't be a nitpicking exercise. It's about the overall essence of his talks. In the end there is a bit too much 'God is (only) within' for me but as you say there are many people listening to him who are drawn to God by non-dualistic thought who would not otherwise have any interest or exposure to 'spiritual thought'?