This Tooth is called Superman/Boudica. It is weird that it has this double title. No doubt this is partially to do with its relation to the Chariot of the Tarot (which features the notion of chariot and hero). It is also remarkable, as was commented before, that in the Hyperqabalah (Eildour), it is the feeder node of the Teufos which is fetus. Hence Superman and Boudica produce the child. However the child as Hyperqabalah node has the curious name Teufos, reminiscent of Teufel (German for the Devil) and also Te UFOs , which could be an adaptation of the Te Deum. It’s tree is the holly, its animal the hare.

How can we make sense of Sunyata? What has happened to the relation to the accretions? Such a person is said to live through a primordial intelligence, seeing things as they are. We can translate this into seeing the vector field itself, but this only makes a certain level of sense. This is because to experience the vector field is to see the regions with no concepts. This is what Sunyata does, however the event of Sunyata also has a being that can still function, they can still use the concepts. 

What are we to make of this? In the ordinary situation the concepts plug into the vectors connecting self-accretion and external vector via accretions (of pneuma) attached to the vector. Clearly the Sunyata person-site is still functioning with the same array of concepts but also has at their disposal other ones that are invisible to regular NARPs ( Neurotic Accretion, Regional Processor) to use the old CEO terminology).

Since we speculate pneuma as a kind of substance, possibly a much simpler process of conceptual naming and recognition is employed in relation to the vector field. The pneuminous accretion is there but reduced to practically nothing; something we don’t consider possible with the heavy accretive layers we commonly attach to things. This gossamer level of minimal attachment is all that is required to enable the same level of communication whilst also revealing the vector field (a sort of things nakedly as they are to humans) itself. The description is of greater richness of perception. One can easily see how the conceptual (accretive) removal could achieve this. The questions remain about more a priori concepts (Kantian categories) and how much Sunyata also can remove these.