New Ayahuasca vs Pharmahuasca Thread

[maranello551]

1. Can the difference between ayahuasca and pharmahuasca - supposedly pharma is less teaching, guiding, or "grounding" (whatever that means) - be offset by simply increasing the dose of extracted harmalas?

2. For those who do pharma with caapi alkaloids, do you notice many differences between using a full caapi brew and using a high dose of extracted caapi alkaloids? If so, which ones?

3. For those who do pharma with rue alkaloids, do you notice many differences between using a full rue brew and using a high dose of extracted rue alkaloids? If so, which ones?

4. Caapi is expensive and thus people don't often use much at a time, Rue in high doses I hear is not healthy and/or contains unsafe levels of toxic compounds (vasicine)......Would taking a high dose of purified Rue harmalas be a good middle ground? Harmalas do have strong effects, right? Would a dose of purified Rue harmalas so large that an unpurified equivalent in Rue would be dangerous, be a reasonable way to go?

On another note, why do people use so few caapi harmalas when doing pharma with caapi extract....If 50g of caapi contains about a gram of alkaloids, why do people often use under 400mg caapi alkaloids per dose.....could this be why the experience is often seen as lacking?

 

[ganesh]

"People often call Caapi, 'La Madre', because the spirit often appears in visions like a woman. This doesn't appear to be the same with Rue."

I beg to differ. I've encountered "mother Aya" using Rue, no doubt about that. But you don't have to believe me, just saying it's been my experience. I remember one time specifically i saw a vision of a brown skinned older woman who did seem motherly yet shamanistic, and i remember she had some sort of bracelets on her wrists, and at one point i heard her voice and she told me to just lay back, close my eyes, calm down/relax/let go and let her do her magic/healing, at which point my hands started hovering over parts of my body and i could definitely feel something going on like a change in energy or something. Aside from that, "mother Aya" has definitely played an on-going role in my experimentation, and i have hardly worked with Caapi btw (only taken it a couple of times, i mainly use Rue).

Also, for me it's definitely nowhere near about the visuals/visions, i don't even get visuals/visions from Rue and Mimosa or Acacia most of the time, though Acacia does at times seem a bit more visual than Mimosa i've noticed. For me, it's all about feeling and understanding.

Personally though, i say why choose one or the other when you can mix both the Caapi and Rue in balanced proportions and have the best of both worlds?

That's great what you write and i agree with that, although 'Mama Rue' does tend to involve dark skinned women apparently, unlike the light skinned women Caapi does, according to stuff i read somewhere. They are bothe 'plant teachers' in their own right, i was merely trying to state that Rue isn't Ayahuasca, and trying to make that clear.

Another point i'd like to ask is that you say you've done Ayahuasca a few times. My question is if you did Aya before rue, because the Ayahuasca will have imprinetd herself onto you, and the Rue might be bringing her out with her own imprint. Just a theory.

 

[Sabnock1990]

Naw, i had taken Rue many times before trying Caapi. And with Caapi i've only tried one vine brew (using about 35 grams of Tigre Caapi vine), and a couple of Caapi leaf teas, so i still definitely have to try the Caapi out some more, but i'm very interested in mixing the Caapi and Rue together, using Rue as the main MAO-A inhibitor but adding some Caapi for the extra Harmine and THH.

 

[pitubo]

Oh. Bother. I just hope we do not have to reiterate the discussion in this thread all over again?

I completely disagree.

With what parts of the reasoning in the thread referenced above and with what part of the reasoning in this thread do you find fault exactly?

The reason there's Ayahuasca/ ANAhuasca/ PHARMAhuasca, is so that we know what we are specifically referring to.

This depends entirely on the context. There are situations when it doesn't really matter what specific type of ayahuasca or what specific source of maoi and dmt is used. There are also situations where it is relevant to specify the exact ingredients. Using the terms 'an ayahuasca' versus 'traditional ayahuasca' can provide all the needed specific clarity as required by the specific context. Why do you have a problem with that?

Moreover, you are suggesting that your interpretation of 'ayahuasca' is highly specific and nonambiguous, but you are wrong about that. There is not one standardized ayahuasca formula. There are many different types of vines in use, some of which do not even belong to the Caapi type (think eg. B. Muricata.) There is a wide variation of admixture plants used. Even the shamanic practice is far more diverse than you appear to be aware of. Traditional amazon shamanism, mestizo shamanism and new-age shamanism have very different notions of the cultural function and role of ayahuasca. Clearly there is not one 'ayahuasca' as you claim. Why do you not consider these issues when you claim to defend the specificity of terms?

Apart from appearances, it's a fact that Caapi isn't the same as Rue, because the plant is a lot more than harmalas, and also they are in completely different proportions, to the other. Now when we just talk about Caapi: Extracted Caapi Alks appear to have different potencies and feelings to that of boiled Caapi, i read on this forum somewhere. This a subject of confusion, pointing to the possability that there are other factors in vine that add to the experience, such as tannins, etc, so perhaps the 'spirit' or 'feeling' of Caapi may not just refer to Caapi Alkaloids.

You fail to make an argument, because there are also big differences between individual brews of ayahuasca. Until you are able to quantify these differences, there is simply too little information to make a valid assessment. Where is your reference for your claim that extracted harmalas have 'different potencies and feelings' than boiled Caapi? BTW, if one were to add tannins to the extracted harmalas, then that would in your opinion be equal to the boiled tea again?

Ayahuasca is any brew that contains the Ayahuasca vine. If it doesn't it can't be called Ayahuasca.

Let's look at various arguments to prove that Ayahuasca is more than 'extracted Alkaloids':

Whilst there are times when people have given Curandero's spice to smoke, and they have said it had the spirit of Ayahuasca, i feel this is wrongly interpreted. I think they said that the 'visions' were similar to Ayahuasca, but that's where it ends, (because Ayahuasca is all about the VINE). Seriously, you cannot really compare the two because whilst there are some visual similarities (because dm is also used in Aya brews), they are not the same. Ayahuasca traditionally isn't so much about 'visuals' anyway, and traditionally it wasn't used as it is today ( Again because Ayahuasca is all about the VINE). Now the modern/current 'scene' seems to be visions orientated to appease the requirements of 'visions hungry', Westerners. Sometimes i feel that highly specific questions are asked, but misinterpreted by these Curandero's. Anyone who has tried both will say they are not the same.

Oh I see, you know much better how to interpret these things than Jonathan Ott, who besides actually being there and working with the indigenous shamans, has spent decades studying the plants, cultures and peoples.

Now lets imagine for a moment that if some curandero was given a Rue based brew over a Caapi based one, they 'might' say they have the same spirit, but seriously is he meaning 'feeling'? People often call Caapi, 'La Madre', because the spirit often appears in visions like a woman. This doesn't appear to be the same with Rue. Again, You don't need a Curandero to tell you that!

Do you have references for your claims about rue induced visions? If not, these are pretty meaningless claims. Certainly your (equally unreferenced) claims about Caapi visions make little sense. Not only is it unreasonable to infer an objective distinction from highly subjective 'visionary content', your claims even lack elementary factual soundness. Here is what Beatriz Labate, another respected researcher, has to say about this:

Looking at indigenous discourse, we note these things appearing more complex. First, it is very important to remember that the ayahuasca brew consists of at least two plants, ayahuasca and chacruna. One of the shamans with whom I worked in Iquitos told me that ayahuasca is most definately a male spirit, while the spirit of chacruna is female. This reflects the findings of other researchers as well. For example, Bustos mentions that the ayahuasca spirit is perceived by the Ashaninka as male and the spirit of chacruna as female.

(source: Labate & Cavnar: Ayahuasca shamanism in the Amazon and beyond, p.175)

This quote is taken from the paragraph titled "The feminization of ayahuasca" which actually starts out with these words:

I will close this chapter with an example from my fieldwork that illustrates the transformation of discourse that can occur when outsiders appropriate ayahuasca shamanism. I call this phenomenon the "feminization of ayahuasca."

Admittedly, there is no clear Amazon-wide consensus on the gender of any of the plants involved, but the authors point out that it is exactly the introduction of gender issues that typifies the appropriation of ayahuasca shamanism by westerners.

Finally, Jonathan Ott reckons that extracted Caapi Alkaloids is where the Spirit is, but really he needs to instead try to emulate it with extracted/synthesized harmalas from another source, in the same proportions, to see it that really is the case.

Not only does Ott claim this, he claims that Amazonian shamans agree with him. Your experimental proposal is certainly interesting, but does in no way negate the statements by Ott or the shamans about "plant spirits".

Whatever, many people have their preferences, but Rue and Caapi are said to feel different. They have a different balance of Alkaloids which (if they are the spirits?) should alone be enough a reason to not call them the same thing. For instance Rue contains little THH, and also a fair bit of Harmalol. Caapi contains more THH and no Harmalol, i believe. Rue also contains Vasinine, or whatever. There is simply enough differences in Alks alone, without mentioning tannins, etc, to be specific about calling one Ayahuasca, and another Anahuasca.

You may be confusing harmaline with harmalol. Furthermore, nexus analysis has shown that many caapi vines also actually contain little THH. If you had actually read my earlier post in this thread, you would have noticed the reference to this caapi analysis thread that pointed this out. Again I restate that individual caapi based brews vary wildly in composition, so much that you cannot simply reduce them to a simgle standard, which undermines your argument.

Vasicine is named just like that. Facts are not a matter of "whatever." If you do not care to get the spelling right, how can you get your facts and references right?

Rue isn't an Ayahuasca!

Speaking generally, rue-based entheogenic brews classify perfectly well as 'an ayahuasca'.

I would really appreciate it if you would actually read the preceding discussions and consider the facts and arguments already presented.

BONUS VIDEO: [YOUTUBE]Ayahuasca is a male spirit (just youtube amusement, not intended as solid "proof".)

 

[ganesh]

With what parts of the reasoning in the thread referenced above and with what part of the reasoning in this thread do you find fault exactly?

Firstly you fail to understand that Ayahuasca must contain Ayahuasca vine to be called so. You say rue brews are 'Ayahuascas', you are wrong.

The reason there's Ayahuasca/ ANAhuasca/ PHARMAhuasca, is so that we know what we are specifically referring to.

This depends entirely on the context. There are situations when it doesn't really matter what specific type of ayahuasca or what specific source of maoi and dmt is used. There are also situations where it is relevant to specify the exact ingredients. Using the terms 'an ayahuasca' versus 'traditional ayahuasca' can provide all the needed specific clarity as required by the specific context. Why do you have a problem with that?

You demonstrate a lack of basic understanding:I have a problem with this because you can't call a rue brew 'an Ayahuasca', because it doesn't contain any, neither does it contain the 'spirit of Ayahuasca'. It is only fair that people should specify if they talk about using; Pharma/ Ana/ or Ayahuasca, because it is more than 'maoi and dmt': What problem do you have with that?

Moreover, you are suggesting that your interpretation of 'ayahuasca' is highly specific and nonambiguous, but you are wrong about that. There is not one standardized ayahuasca formula. There are many different types of vines in use, some of which do not even belong to the Caapi type (think eg. B. Muricata.) There is a wide variation of admixture plants used. Even the shamanic practice is far more diverse than you appear to be aware of. Traditional amazon shamanism, mestizo shamanism and new-age shamanism have very different notions of the cultural function and role of ayahuasca. Clearly there is not one 'ayahuasca' as you claim. Why do you not consider these issues when you claim to defend the specificity of terms?

You fail to realise that Ayahuasca is Ayahuasca when it contains the Ayahausca vine. The light plants are not the issue/ don't matter what they are, cos all traditions use different ones.(The vine makes it Ayahuasca).I don't understand why you find that such a difficult concept to grasp?

You fail to make an argument, because there are also big differences between individual brews of ayahuasca. Until you are able to quantify these differences, there is simply too little information to make a valid assessment. Where is your reference for your claim that extracted harmalas have 'different potencies and feelings' than boiled Caapi? BTW, if one were to add tannins to the extracted harmalas, then that would in your opinion be equal to the boiled tea again?

As repeated: Ayahuasca is any brew that contains 'the Ayahuasca vine'. If it doesn't it can't be called Ayahuasca.

Oh I see, you know much better how to interpret these things than Jonathan Ott, who besides actually being there and working with the indigenous shamans, has spent decades studying the plants, cultures and peoples.

He isn't the 'be all' expert of experts, besides he makes some claims i don't agree with, although you can agree with what you want. As i said here: Jonathan Ott reckons that extracted Caapi Alkaloids is where the Spirit is, but he can't be sure untill he's tried all other possabilities, and should instead try to emulate it with extracted/synthesized harmalas from 'another source', in the same proportions, to see it that really is the case. To fail to do so would be highly unscientific, and lacking!
Most Curandero's will agree that extracted Caapi Alks have 'the spirit', cos the effects are similar, but they have even said that about smoked dm, and even YOU know that smoked dm, isn't the same as Ayahuasca, because Ayahuasca is really about the VINE. This illustrates that sometimes these Curanderos really don't understand what 'exactly and specifically', Scientists really want to know!

Do you have references for your claims about rue induced visions? If not, these are pretty meaningless claims.
Admittedly, there is no clear Amazon-wide consensus on the gender of any of the plants involved, but the authors point out that it is exactly the introduction of gender issues that typifies the appropriation of ayahuasca shamanism by westerners.

That's what Bia Labate says. Whatever, Ayahuasca isn't really about visions, that's a new Western thang. I admit i/many others, may be wrong about this widely accepted idea and visions involving the mysterious 'mama Ayahuasca'.

Finally, Jonathan Ott reckons that extracted Caapi Alkaloids is where the Spirit is, but really he needs to instead try to emulate it with extracted/synthesized harmalas from another source, in the same proportions, to see it that really is the case.

Not only does Ott claim this, he claims that Amazonian shamans agree with him. Your experimental proposal is certainly interesting, but does in no way negate the statements by Ott or the shamans about "plant spirits".

More experiments are required because i have just demonstrated that Ott's idea isn't airtight untill what i have suggested is done. Even then some Curandero's might even say that the Caapi spirit from the vine simply moved into the extracted harmalas because the intention was focussed upon them containing that spirit. We must agree at least that these plants are simply more than the extracted Alkaloids, and that there may be a lot more going on than maoi, and even possible added dm.

You may be confusing harmaline with harmalol. Furthermore, nexus analysis has shown that many caapi vines also actually contain little THH. If you had actually read my earlier post in this thread, you would have noticed the reference to this caapi analysis thread that pointed this out. Again I restate that individual caapi based brews vary wildly in composition, so much that you cannot simply reduce them to a simgle standard, which undermines your argument.
Vasicine is named just like that. Facts are not a matter of "whatever." If you do not care to get the spelling right, how can you get your facts and references right?

Caapi isn't the same as rue. Rue contains many Alks Caapi doesn't. Some Caapi may not contain THH, but most does, and more than Rue. The proportions are also different. The plant matter may also play a big part too. It's about the Spirits too, not just 'compounds'.

Rue isn't an Ayahuasca!

Speaking generally, rue-based entheogenic brews classify perfectly well as 'an ayahuasca'.

I would really appreciate it if you would actually read the preceding discussions and consider the facts and arguments already presented.

As i've already stated from the beginning, you're completely WRONG. You can't call Rue based brews 'an Ayahuasca' because they wont contain any VINE, unless some is added of course!

 

[Sabnock1990]

I think the whole name thing we apply to this stuff is stupid, brings out nothing but in-fighting amongst people i've noticed. I say just use whatever plants you wanna use.

But i still say, why not just mix both Caapi and Rue? And even if Rue isn't Ayahuasca, it's still certainly similar and can be used for similar purposes, and Rue definitely has it's own history ime/imo, it feels very sacred/Entheogenic to me.

 

[ganesh]

I think the whole name thing we apply to this stuff is stupid, brings out nothing but in-fighting amongst people i've noticed. I say just use whatever plants you wanna use.

But i still say, why not just mix both Caapi and Rue? And even if Rue isn't Ayahuasca, it's still certainly similar and can be used for similar purposes, and Rue definitely has it's own history ime/imo, it feels very sacred/Entheogenic to me.

Those reasons WHY it is important to be specific are to be found in this thread.

 

[Sabnock1990]

I say, instead of calling it Ayahuasca, Anahuasca, or Pharmahuasca, why not just specify which plants one is using and keep it at that? If one uses Caapi, they use Caapi (also including which kind of Caapi), if someone uses Rue, they use Rue, if someone uses purified Harmalas/extracts, then they use that. I for one am over the whole naming thing, names don't really matter, the plants do. You can call a mixture "Jungle Juice" for all i care, all that matters is what's in the "Jungle Juice".

People really make too big of a deal out of all this, imo. Just find which plants/combos work best for you, and use those plants. Regardless of what you wanna call it, it'll still work.

 

[ganesh]

I say, instead of calling it Ayahuasca, Anahuasca, or Pharmahuasca, why not just specify which plants one is using and keep it at that? If one uses Caapi, they use Caapi (also including which kind of Caapi), if someone uses Rue, they use Rue, if someone uses purified Harmalas/extracts, then they use that.

Yes you can say that if you want, but it's so easy to grasp this stuff i dont understand why you can't simply 'get it'? What next, shall we get rid of the word 'Changa' because of that same reason?

Anyhow Ayahuasca refers to the original medicine, rue, and pharmaceuticals only came later as substitutes. The rest has already been said.

 

[maranello551]

Ok then back to the topic.......so do you guys think rue extracted harmalas feel different from rue at equivalent dosages and that vine extracted harmalas feel different from vine at equivalent dosages?

Does raising the dose of rue past the point of full maoi have no use, unlike doing so with vine, as some say?

 

[maranello551]

A) Why did high dosage cause tremoring?

B) How high did you go with the dosages?

C) How does high dose rue differ from the commonly taken doses or rather the bare doses needed for full-maoi?

 

[Sabnock1990]

@maranello551 - A: Most likely because of Harmaline's GABA-A inverse agonism, which GABA-A inverse agonism is known to cause tremoring and convulsions in large dosages, as well as generate anxiety (whereas GABA-A agonists relieve anxiety).

B: As i take the Rue, i back the dosage down bit by bit as the reverse tolerance builds up, so the end result is only needing a little bit of Rue/Harmalas (or even Caapi) for a full on strong/heavy dosage (if you build the reverse tolerance up enough). Right now if i take 2 size 0 capsules of Rue seed powder which is about 1.6 grams or so, it's equivalent to probably about 8 grams or so of Rue/Harmalas. Granted, there are other compounds in Rue which might not have the reverse tolerance effect like the Harmalas do, and maybe that's why some of the side-effects go away as the dosage is lowered while the Harmalas get stronger. My guess would be that around 8 to 10 grams of Rue, maybe 10 grams, can cause the tremoring, and once i hit that point where i'm experiencing tremoring i either back the dosage down a bit or stop taking it for a few days. I've noticed now i only need to take it like once or twice a week to keep the dose strong/heavy and keep the reverse tolerance going.

C: It differs quite a bit i'd say. With the reverse tolerance, it's certainly a lot cleaner feeling with strong/heavy dosages than without the reverse tolerance. Without the reverse tolerance, there'd be no way in hell i'd be able to take such strong dosages and even keep it down. With these higher dosages, at least with the reverse tolerance, i just notice a bit more sedation/body relaxation, but aside from that it feels quite clean and easy to work with strong/heavy dosages now and there's not really that much in the way of motor impairment. Without the reverse tolerance though, these strong/heavy dosages would most likely cause significant side-effects like heavy/rough/sickly body load, hardcore nausea/vomiting, quite noticeable motor impairment and ataxia, and other side-effects that are associated with Rue. Quite frankly once you get to a certain point, there's really no need to take anymore, i'd say around 8 grams is probably the limit i'd be willing to go.

 

[Sabnock1990]

@ganesh - Do keep in mind Peganum Harmala has probably been used a lot longer than Caapi has, and the Rue has it's own history and usefulness/sacredness.

I'm just getting tired of everyone arguing with one another over some bs that doesn't even matter man. They're plants, find the one's that work best for you, and use them. It doesn't matter what you call it, all that matters is what plants are involved.

Quite frankly, i'm glad i don't work with Caapi, it seems like those who do have huge ego's and think everything has to be traditional or it's somehow not legit/genuine. I don't wanna associate myself with Ayahuasca because of how the community is/acts towards outsiders.

 

[ganesh]

@ganesh - Do keep in mind Peganum Harmala has probably been used a lot longer than Caapi has, and the Rue has it's own history and usefulness/sacredness.

I'm just getting tired of everyone arguing with one another over some bs that doesn't even matter man. They're plants, find the one's that work best for you, and use them. It doesn't matter what you call it, all that matters is what plants are involved.

Quite frankly, i'm glad i don't work with Caapi, it seems like those who do have huge ego's and think everything has to be traditional or it's somehow not legit/genuine. I don't wanna associate myself with Ayahuasca because of how the community is/acts towards outsiders.

I'm fully aware that Rue use has a long history.

Yes it is tiring having people arguing about Ayahuasca, because they do not know what Ayahuasca actually is. I find this both annoying, and also a sign of ignorance. It isn't about anything other than making a fact clear, just like you wouldn't call Peyote cactus a San Pedro. There are actually good reasons why it is important to differentiate. That appears obvious to me, anyway.

Quite frankly, i'm glad i don't work with Caapi, it seems like those who do have huge ego's and think everything has to be traditional or it's somehow not legit/genuine. I don't wanna associate myself with Ayahuasca because of how the community is/acts towards outsiders.

I think you're misguided. People tend to choose Caapi because that is what they need to make Ayahuasca. Naturally if you can get the traditional plants and they are potent, then it makes sense to use them; Rue is often only used as an alternative. Of course some may prefer to use Rue, but that's as far as it goes, just personal choice.

If anyone's being 'snobbish' then that's something i'm unnaware of. By the way don't confuse 'snobbish' behaviour with simply having the facts made clear, and finding that something hard to deal with. I've noticed on this thread, (and also the one that i linked) some people behaving in a rather difficult almost 'trollish' manner, like they just refuse to accept what Ayahuasca actually is, and instead want to impose their own ideas like Rue is an Ayahuasca; It isn't. They simply like to argue and cause a fuss!

It's ok to disagree, but it's not ok to try and spread false propoganda.

 

[maranello551]

C: It differs quite a bit i'd say. With the reverse tolerance, it's certainly a lot cleaner feeling with strong/heavy dosages than without the reverse tolerance. Without the reverse tolerance, there'd be no way in hell i'd be able to take such strong dosages and even keep it down. With these higher dosages, at least with the reverse tolerance, i just notice a bit more sedation/body relaxation, but aside from that it feels quite clean and easy to work with strong/heavy dosages now and there's not really that much in the way of motor impairment. Without the reverse tolerance though, these strong/heavy dosages would most likely cause significant side-effects like heavy/rough/sickly body load, hardcore nausea/vomiting, quite noticeable motor impairment and ataxia, and other side-effects that are associated with Rue. Quite frankly once you get to a certain point, there's really no need to take anymore, i'd say around 8 grams is probably the limit i'd be willing to go.

I like that. On this other thread, though, harmala heavy experiences were described like this:

"
..it's also about the kind or strength of brew, when i say 'a few faces..'

..the two shaman who introduced the McKenna brothers to Ayahuasca are an example..these were the brews that made you godawful sick, but eventually lead to profound synaesthesia, 3D lit-up moving entities in the dark etc..being in icaro-modulated spice-hyperspace for hours..D. McKenna tested a number of these super-potent deep amazon brews (from a few tribes) and found one thing in common..the DMT plant level was kept constant so that it equated to about 30mg per dose, however the beta-carboline level was three to four times the required amount for MAO inhibition..when i the good fortune of first being told about 'deep jungle ayahuasca' by T. McKenna the quoted caapi doses were like 150-300 grams ..this was their old school formula, not like the modern brews (& no brugmansia either btw) ..the amount of DMT plant was never increased to make a brew 'stronger', only the amount of vine..
"

Do you find this to be true or do you really find just a tad more sedation and relaxation when working with higher doses of harmalas as you said?

 

[Jees]

As far as I've read about it, in SA they always refer to fresh wood weight, there is no reason for them to dry it. Look the youtube vids of SA people making aya, they hit the vine wood with wooden clubs or stones to break it apart, you can't do that with dry wood as such. One must divide wet fresh wood weight with 3 to 4 (a number found at the ayahuasca forum) to compare with dry wood.
If so: then 150 - 300 fresh could be like 50 - 100 gr dry.
The typical 'standard' is 50 gr dry wood per cup, you could say 50 - 100 is not insanely above that, just quite substantially.

I've also noticed some reports where people speak of their strongest SA experiences with only a few leaves of light, whatever is 'few'. Then again why being so anal about dose?
The experience is build up of much more than that. The SA diet, the context, the intentions, the whole set setting reutemeteut. You can't just (IMHO) compare a home brew in the weekend with being there in SA drinking fresh materials while the jungle makes the stage for a longer stay.

* * *

What ShamensStamen does with rue is beyond typical and I tip my hat for that. I'm quite amazed and never thought such things were doable. So thanks for sharing.

* * *

I've friends you could put in the category aya elitists or aya snobs but this wording is not fair in my eyes. It's just they have this approach and go with it and they might have indeed some misconception about other things but so what? It only hits you as far as you let it hit you. Be the wiser is my advice, in the end you might be surprised of your own (latent) misconceptions.
If there's anything I can do to change their mind, is just saying what I do, and then illustrating by just being who I am, how I evolved, that I'm on a right track. Let the prove be the prove.
If you feel (emotionally) triggered by what others do/say, it might be a mirror speaking. The subject at hand is not that important for this mechanism to work IME.

 

[pitubo]

From the thread that both ganesh and I quoted:

But.... Pitubo will be ultimately correct, 50-100 years from now the word will change. Just now now .

Hey, there's something I can agree upon!

I have my doubts about the 50-100 years though. See my argument about the thread title already.

Anyway, if we can agree on the inevitable, why not anticipate as well and try to manage the confusion about terms early on? Why fill a sizable part of the period between "now" and "when everybody finally agrees pitubo was right all along" with bickering and anger when we already know the outcome?

Please do understand my intentions: I have never wanted to deny or diminish any particular and distinguishing positive characteristics of the different varieties of the banisteriopsis caapi vines, nor of the classical ayahuasca traditions as they have been practiced in the amazon basin for generations.

But neither do I feel it to be right to disqualify the qualities of the rue plant or the practices that modern individuals may originate. Especially not when done so on grounds that are almost exclusively sentimental.

I believe that caapi and rue share much more than divides them and that using the name "ayahuasca" for what unites them should be meant as an honoring of the classical Ayahuasca tradition, not a sacrilege.

In light of the original subject of this thread, I think it would be fair to include pharmahuasca in the intent of the above quote.

All of these preparations share much more than divides them.

 

[Sabnock1990]

@ganesh - I think we are all very aware of the fact that the B. Caapi vine itself is Ayahuasca. I for one just don't think Caapi is that important, i mean maybe if you're wanting Ayahuasca, but i'd much rather take Rue over Caapi any day. I really wanna start working with Caapi as more of an admixture plant with the Rue quite honestly. And as far as i know, ime, Rue is definitely Ayahuasca-like, it may not be Ayahuasca, but is definitely Ayahuasca-like.

@Jees - Thanks man, i do what i can.

@maranello551 - I'm not sure, but i would think strong Rue dosages would have a similar effect to strong Caapi dosages, but with a bit of extra sedation/relaxation/dreamyness. I do know though that with a good Rue dosage, a little bit of DMT can go a long way for sure. Stronger Rue dosages definitely make things more Ayahuasca-like rather than DMT-like when using more common Rue dosages. As for any difference in visuals from large Rue dosages, i don't really get much in the way of visuals with any dosage, so it's difficult to say, but the other day when i took 2.4 grams of some potent Shroom powder with my strong dose of Rue, i was definitely seeing some visuals and the experience was quite powerful. I just wonder why Shrooms would be more visual for me yet DMT is hardly visual at all for me.

 

[ganesh]

@ganesh - I think we are all very aware of the fact that the B. Caapi vine itself is Ayahuasca. I for one just don't think Caapi is that important, i mean maybe if you're wanting Ayahuasca, but i'd much rather take Rue over Caapi any day. I really wanna start working with Caapi as more of an admixture plant with the Rue quite honestly. And as far as i know, ime, Rue is definitely Ayahuasca-like, it may not be Ayahuasca, but is definitely Ayahuasca-like.

Yea, whatever works for you is fine. I just can't understand it when some people try to say that Ayahuasca is Rue, cos it isn't, just like Peyote isn't San Pedro, or Chakruna isn't Chaliponga.

I'm glad some seem to 'get it'.

 

[maranello551]

@ganesh - I think we are all very aware of the fact that the B. Caapi vine itself is Ayahuasca. I for one just don't think Caapi is that important, i mean maybe if you're wanting Ayahuasca, but i'd much rather take Rue over Caapi any day. I really wanna start working with Caapi as more of an admixture plant with the Rue quite honestly. And as far as i know, ime, Rue is definitely Ayahuasca-like, it may not be Ayahuasca, but is definitely Ayahuasca-like.

Yea, whatever works for you is fine. I just can't understand it when some people try to say that Ayahuasca is Rue, cos it isn't, just like Peyote isn't San Pedro, or Chakruna isn't Chaliponga.

I'm glad some seem to 'get it'.

Nobody said ayahuasca is rue......what was said, I believe, is that the experience offered by rue is very ayahuasca-like.

 

[ganesh]

Nobody said ayahuasca is rue......what was said, I believe, is that the experience offered by rue is very ayahuasca-like.

Anahuasca/pharmahuasca, was WRONGLY said to be 'an' Ayahuasca. Anahuasca involves Rue.
Please re read the thread.