Ayahuasca is NOT dmt?

[Benjamin_James]

While the source may give rise to some controversy, I think this idea is at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion.

"DMT is not Ayahuasca. Ayahuasca is something else altogether that involves a very specific branch of frequency of elemental consciousnesses and is for a very specific kind of tuttelage."

-"Bashar" as channeled by Darryl Anka


Having only experienced DMT, I can only give a limited perspective on the matter- and that is, that I find surprisingly little in common among the plethora of anecdotal accounts of Ayahuasca and DMT.

Thoughts and implications?


Bashar on DMT/Aya

 

[benzyme]

afaik, ayahuasca is an infusion of banasteriopsis caapi. Hoasca is an infusion with caapi and psychotria viridis.

 

[Benjamin_James]

So, disciple of hassan i sabbah, what does that mean chemically, and therefore experientially?

 

[jamie]

ayahuasca is a brew that sometimes contains DMT plants, and always contains caapi vine containing harmala alkaloids..specifically harmine..well sometimes contains vines that contain no harmalas.

That good enough?

We can argue semantics all day. Ayahuasca, in reference to the context in the west contains DMT.

 

[The Traveler]

ayahuasca is a brew that sometimes contains DMT plants, and always contains caapi vine containing harmala alkaloids..specifically harmine..well sometimes contains vines that contain no harmalas.

That good enough?

We can argue semantics all day. Ayahuasca, in reference to the context in the west contains DMT.

I think this nails it.

"DMT is not Ayahuasca. Ayahuasca is something else altogether that involves a very specific branch of frequency of elemental consciousnesses and is for a very specific kind of tuttelage."

-"Bashar" as channeled by Darryl Anka

And even though we can all have our ideas ideas, I think we should be aware of people who want to inject their religion and vague ideas into something as special as Ayahuasca.

Of course a mind shattering substance is an easy prey for such people but we should make sure that we can all dive into our own Ayahuasca experience with our own ideas without any religious group making claims of truth about it.

And to me this religious and institutionalized 'channeled' dogma has no place here on the DMT-Nexus where we are looking for unbiased research.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

From a neuroscience standpoint, Ayahuasca that contains DMT is functionally almost identical to smoked DMT: the difference in speed and intensity is largely function of metabolism: the neurological effects are largely the same.

Given that we can account for the differences with measurable physiological changes to the body, talking about cosmic, spiritual stuff seems kind of pointless.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Benjamin_James]

We can argue semantics all day. Ayahuasca, in reference to the context in the west contains DMT.

Not sure what you mean regarding semantics... I am expressing a perceived difference between people's experiences on DMT vs. Ayahuasca; I would think that if they were so similar, people would be talking about the similarities, and I have seen very little in terms of people talking about the shared experiential elements.

You make a good implicit point regarding harmine- honestly jamie I don't think the Ayahuasca community at large (of the Daniel Pinchbeck variety) realizes the implications of the combination of DMT and harmalas.. The point being that Ayahuasca is not simply a prolonged DMT experience, although many people believe it to be exactly that. The Spirit Molecule documentary even alludes to this idea that Ayahuasca is a "slowed down" DMT experience.

Although, since you bring up semantics, your comment about Aya in the context of the west puzzles me.. Are you saying that in a western context, Ayahuasca contains DMT, but in others, it does not...?

 

[Benjamin_James]

From a neuroscience standpoint, Ayahuasca that contains DMT is functionally almost identical to smoked DMT ... the neurological effects are largely the same.

This to me simply illustrates the point that neuroscience is severely limited in explaining what is going on during these experiences.

Given that we can account for the differences with measurable physiological changes to the body, talking about cosmic, spiritual stuff seems kind of pointless.

So... whereas before you said that they are "functionally almost identical", you're now saying that the differences can be measured physiologically? How do measurable physiological changes give us any insight into the experiential dimension? This is a DMT forum titled "First Steps in HYPERSPACE" right? Most of the time the "cosmic, spiritual stuff" is all we have to go on. As much as I would love for science to get on board with psychedelic experiences, I'm not so keen on being 30 years behind the curve, waiting for science to get a grip on this stuff.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

From a neuroscience standpoint, Ayahuasca that contains DMT is functionally almost identical to smoked DMT ... the neurological effects are largely the same.

This to me simply illustrates the point that neuroscience is severely limited in explaining what is going on during these experiences.

Given that we can account for the differences with measurable physiological changes to the body, talking about cosmic, spiritual stuff seems kind of pointless.

So... whereas before you said that they are "functionally almost identical", you're now saying that the differences can be measured physiologically? How do measurable physiological changes give us any insight into the experiential dimension? This is a DMT forum titled "First Steps in HYPERSPACE" right? Most of the time the "cosmic, spiritual stuff" is all we have to go on. As much as I would love for science to get on board with psychedelic experiences, I'm not so keen on being 30 years behind the curve, waiting for science to get a grip on this stuff.

I said they are almost identical, and the discrepancies can be very effectively explained by a scientific analysis. The primary difference between smoked DMT and DMT consume orally, with an MAOI is that much more smoked DMT makes it to your brain (since it's not metabolized in the stomach, and the mucous membranes in the lungs are more permeable, so more gets into the bloodstream) and the smoked molecule makes to the brain much faster (lung tissues allows way more molecules/sec to cross).

And you can say that neuroscience is limiting, if that's your belief and I can respect that, however, neuroscience is really all that we've got. You can't empirically measure someone's subjective religious experiences (not yet anyway, I hope to change that one day ), or what's happening in their "soul" or "third eye" or whatever because, there's no valid scientific evidence that such things exist. You can however look at the action of DMT on 5-HT receptors in the brain and the functional effects that 5-HT receptor agonism has on blood flow in certain areas: all things that are very measurable.
You can even correlate receptor agonism and area activation with certain, broad, subjective experiences, however, you still have to tie it back to measurable actions in the brain for it to be meaningful and useful.

I'm not denying that Ayahuasca and DMT can be powerful, personal, spiritual tools, but given the highly individualized nature of the experiences, they are just that: personal. My experiences with mushrooms and DMT have been wonderful: they opened my eyes to new ways of thinking and lifted me out of years of depression, however, I know that those experiences are mine and, one way or another, the product of activity in the brain.

Once you start taking you personal beliefs and imposing them on others, especially if you are denying the validity of the scientific method, you're straying into somewhat dangerous territory. It's certainly territory where people won't take you as seriously.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Benjamin_James]

Traveler I see you have some strong opinions about Bashar, and while I don't agree, this probably isn't the place to discuss him in depth. The only thing I have to say is that to lump him in with "religion" is a severe overgeneralization and borderline ad hominem. I have my skepticisms about him as well, but to essentially call someone a religious charlatan when they have in fact publicly spoken out in opposition of religious structures... I don't know man I guess you're the boss around here..

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "unbiased research" because I am having a difficult time believing that this site is all about straight scientific objectivity. Sweet baby jesus man there are doctors and scholars having conversations about machine elves and rainbow colored anacondas, shouldn't we leave some room to discuss the more subjective aspects of this whole experience? Or do we wait quietly while science takes its time catching up?

The scientific method only validates what is repeatable. This is a flaw that psychedelics expose- everything always changes, and quite spontaneously.

Call me a sensationalist, but then again I've had some rather sensational experiences.

 

[Benjamin_James]

Once you start taking you personal beliefs and imposing them on others, especially if you are denying the validity of the scientific method, you're straying into somewhat dangerous territory. It's certainly territory where people won't take you as seriously.

You're confusing the expression of my beliefs with the imposition of my beliefs. If you feel imposed upon, that is your feeling, not my intent.

Dangerous territory? This is an internet forum, and I feel perfectly safe.

I'm simply not a hard science type such as yourself, and I feel that the scientific method is imperfect, and that there are other forms of validity. An example being that you treated your own depression with psychedelics, those benefits are personally valid for you. Science would however not validate your "treatment".. So what is really valid here?

...you still have to tie it back to measurable actions in the brain for it to be meaningful and useful.

Are you sure? What measurable actions in the brain did you tie back to for the treatment of your own depression?

...I know that those experiences are mine and, one way or another, the product of activity in the brain.

Quite a claim my friend, but no brain is an island. That experience is simply a product of brain function is an outdated idea that originated with Steve Pinker's evolutionary psychology. There is good deal of evidence out there that suggests the brain is more of an antenna than anything.