goddard said:
...would that still be aya?...
This is a quote from the ayahuasca forum basic info:
...Ayahuasca derives from the Quechua aya-spirit/dead, waska-vine/rope...
If 'waska' is indeed referring to vine/rope, then the answer is clear as rue is not a vine.
If you leave the 'waska' out of it, and say only 'aya' then rue can surely roll the spirit/dead game.
But if you say 'aya' as an abbreviation of ayahuasca then we're back at: rue is not a vine.
One might think it's splitting hairs, but for easy communicating about the subject it's welcome to use same definitions. I've nothing against personal interpretations at all, but if we could eliminate misunderstandings what we're talking about that would be cool.
The most common interpretations are:
- ayahuasca contains the vine and the brew is full spectrum a la indigenous style;
- aya is an abbreviation of ayahuasca;
- anahuasca does not contain the vine and refers merely to rue based brews. Technically this is wrong as it contains "huasca" and should thus refer to the vine. It's a mess :lol:
- if plants got extracted to fine tune on the alkaloids, then it becomes pharmahuasca. This is also technically wrong because making a brew in indigenous style is also a means of making an extraction of the plants, it's just more full spectrum (tannins and whatnot). But the general consensus is that "pharma" refers to acid-base extractions mainly.
.