chocobeastie said:
My basic point is that some tribes decided to break tradition to add DMT to their ayahuasca when it was being argued that ayahuasca is all you need and how can you argue with the longstanding traditions?
I think you may be slightly misrepresenting the point pitubo made, which was not that "ayahuasca is all you need" but rather that DMT admixtures are optional.
pitubo said:
...amazon people who have for generations...insisted that dmt is entirely optional to ayahuasca!
I think this point might be more or less supported depending on which group of people is being discussed, but that's just my opinion
Interestingly enough, Shepard's passage from Bia's book reveals a bit more.
Glenn Shepard said:
The Matsigenka remember the former admixtures and sometimes add them to the contemporary Banisteriopsis-Psychotria preparation to enhance its effects. But, other than this occasional and perhaps nostalgic reference to the older tradition, Psychotria has completely replaced the prior admixtures. No one has prepared Banisteriopsis brew without Psychotria since the late 1950s or early 1960s. I have been unsuccessful in eliciting specific descriptions of the prior brew's effects, since the Matsigenka are generally reluctant to speak in detail about such experiences. When I have asked older men about the former brew, they mention that it, too, is strongly "intoxicating" (kepigari) and takes the shaman to the spirit world as effectively as the contemporary Psychotria-based brew. The main difference they note is the consistency, always referred to as thick and honey like, and the longer time needed for preparation. The Psychotria-based brew, by contrast, can be consumed when still in liquid form after about four to six hours of cooking, with no need to reduce it to a thicker consistency. Although the reduced preparation time is certainly a factor, I assume that the Psychotria-based ayahuasca brew is preferred today, indeed used exclusively, because it provides stronger and more consistent intoxicating effects than the older formula.
So, interestingly enough, despite Shepard's reporting that the few elders he's been able to get to comment on the matter have told him that "the former brew...is strongly intoxicating," for some reason, he then asserts that he assumes that "the Psychotria-based ayahuasca brew is preferred today...because it provides stronger and more consistent intoxicating effects than the older formula." Unfortunately, he doesn't give any insight into the reasoning behind his assumption, so it's hard to know exactly why he's making it and what evidence supports the assumption. I'm not sure why he wouldn't provide his reasoning, but it does leave us a bit in the dark.
You state that you believe that:
chocobeastie said:
The answer is, some tribes have broken those long standing traditions, because the vine works better with DMT. Everyone knows that.
However, I would contend that this is not so much about what "everyone knows" a much as personal preferences. At Ozora, you and Giorgio Samorini were both adamant in your dislike of harmala effects and "side effects" for both oral brews and changa. Even in this thread, I believe you have referenced your dislike for harmala-heavy changa and ayahuasca. Giorgio mentioned his quest for a "perfecthuasca" where the harmala effects were essentially not apparent. I expressed dissent with those positions at the time.
Personally, I find the higher dose harmala experience to have much greater therapeutic value, for me. In talking and comparing doses with other folks on this site, I know that I am not alone in that view, but I would not claim that more or less harmalas are "better" or "worse" but rather that it depends on the person (or group) in question and the effects they are looking for. Actually, I would contend that one of the things that makes tryptamine/RIMA combinations so versatile is that you have at least two components you can adjust to modulate the desired effects from any given experience.
Imo, there's really no way to make overarching statements about the "ideal" especially given the difference between human metabolisms and MAO as well as personal desires. I know people who have no interest in taking DMT at this point in their lives, who still find tremendous benefits from utilizing harmala-only preparations. Would adding DMT to their preparations make it "better?" It seems unlikely to me as that's not what they're looking for, so how could it be "better?" I think it's important to remember that there is no universal experience or desire to have X experience. Rather, people should do what's best for them.
As a final aside, I don't know that anyone in this thread is claiming "vast antiquity" in the sense of omnipresence of ayahuasca throughout Amazonian cultures over human history. But, as Nen and Jamie wrote about in a prior Nexian article and as we have discussed in many threads, numerous plant decoctions, snuffs, and smoking blends containing various tryptamines and betacarbolines have been around for millenia. How widespread they were is of less interest to me, personally, than the fact that we can trace that thread back pretty far. Hell, looking at contemporary times, psychedelic users are a tiny percentage of the population. Perhaps it's not so surprising to find that perhaps that's nothing new, eh?
Just a thought
