Dear Dan,

I confess, a few things led me to drop the thread:

1.       It’s a cartoon;  and although it is very well drawn and realized, it is still one person’s take on things. But what is that take?
2.       It seems to be deliberately ambiguous, as exemplified by the range of interpretations. I think this may be a metaphor for how we treat the Vidyadhara’s teachings, in that those who sat at his feet seem to have so many different interpretations of what he actually said and meant, never mind about what he intended for the future of the Shambhala and Buddhist teachings in our community and the world after his departure from this realm. Personally, I am constantly amazed by how categorical people can be about both, but especially the latter.
3.       Given the ambiguity, I don’t see much point in arguing about what each of us sees in the cartoon. As I mentioned earlier, it is in some sense a canvas for our projections; I think the point there is to examine our own projections rather than daring others to knock them down (sorry to be so boring…).
4.       I think the “Pop”ping of conceptual dwelling (on emptiness) in the second panel was the essential message of the whole cartoon.

Best wishes,

Nick