Huasca experiences, Santo Daime in Aus

[Thelema]

8) acacia dmt is nothing like chacruna dmt. for an experienced person there are more difference than similarities, even for the smoked form. This is amplified in the oral form

Hi T, any theory, pharmacologically speaking, as to why this should be so? Speculations?

[∂an]

chacruna is a very clean NN-DMT source, whilst acacias usually contain a spectrum of alkaloids?

[drugo]

Chacruna has a very different vibe to the acacias. Chemical discourse can be distracting in trying to nut-out the differences. For instance, native Aus. subaeruginosa mushrooms (psilocybin) are much more similar to the acacias (DMT) than chacruna (DMT) is to the acacias, despite the difference in chemicals. The obvious logic is that both the native Aus woodlovin mushrooms and the acacias have lived on the same land for many many years and thus probably share the same hyperspace taverns and holiday destinations. There is more going on than chemicals. Chemicals have actions relative to unknown variables.

I'm very curious to try the African or Middle-eastern acacias. Any reports here?

Edited June 29, 2012 by drugo

[drugo]

also, acacia obtusifolia often has a bunch of the interesting synergistic chemical NMT to tango with DMT, but acacia courtii, for instance, is recorded as being purely nn-DMT and is still very very different to psychotria viridis or chacruna.

[shruman]

"Chacruna has a very different vibe to the acacias."

How did you ascertain this?, through double blinds?

I would realy love to see evidence to support this, I find it fascinating just how unreliable peoples perceptions are when establishing effects in a double blind, reminds me of this recent study done on DXM where 11 out of 12 thought they had been given a classic serotonergic halucinogen (eg they could'nt tell the difference between mushrooms & DXM):

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31950&st=0&p=364962entry364962

"For instance, native Aus. subaeruginosa mushrooms (psilocybin) are much more similar to the acacias (DMT) than chacruna (DMT) is to the acacias, despite the difference in chemicals. The obvious logic is that both the native Aus woodlovin mushrooms and the acacias have lived on the same land for many many years and thus probably share the same hyperspace taverns and holiday destinations."

Once again I wonder how you ascertain this?

That would mean one would have to believe in hyperspace which is fundamentaly illogical, you can not prove this & instead rely on faith.

"Chemicals have actions relative to unknown variables."

Do you mind elaborating?, maybe an example?, &what you mean by that statement, where are you going with it?

"is recorded as being purely nn-DMT and is still very very different to psychotria viridis or chacruna."

Could you point me in the direction of this record & their methodology?. I am aware of it being there but just want to see the methodology.

[drugo]

Hi Shruman, nice to see others interested in such things!

I didn't come to these conclusions using psychological 'double blind' approaches. I don't think you would be convinced even if I used these methods, given the example you gave. Epistemological hypochondria or chronic doubt may not be the most productive way of ascertaining fact. Plus, in trying to know psychedelic phenomenology, Nietzsche's critique of democracy (why should people vote if they are not seriously engaged in political discourse) can be exported to the study of random people using psychedelics in 'double blind' conditions.

The resonance and dissonance between experiences of acacias, subs., cubes, chacruna, hostilis, etc. has been ascertained through continuously engaging with the plants and mushrooms over many years. This is not 'faith' but an old school method, one that has lasted the test of time given its concrete pragmatics. 'Verification' of 'evidence' is helped by talking with people who I know have had continuous engagement with these babies and are generally solid in their views on things. I guess I see this method as, not double blind, but triple vision to the power of normality.

Acacia courtii being virtually only nn-DMT was sourced from Snu's magnum opus Garden of Eden.

While it is typically thought that spiritual proof is based on 'revelation' and scientific proof based on 'method', there are definite methods involved in yanking your third-eye open, tuning in, and bring-through knowledge about 'hyperspace'. And, accordingly, things are defined true in science when methods reveal or are in 'revelation' of fact.

as for hyperspace being 'fundamentally illogical', I can't help but think of Carbon Based Lifeform's

'Only illogics find hidden flaws in a straight logic line'

As our brains continue to mutate our capacity to verbally register logics of hyper-modes-of-consciousness naturally optimises. The question is not, 'is hyperspace real?' but rather, 'in what ways is hyperspace real?'. From here we take psychedelic experience and then, similar to old school photography methods, apply discourse and paradigm 'dyes' and see what truths emerge from the abyss, while remembering that the best stuff always comes from the edges of fact --- in the chaos from which order is nourished.

[shruman]

"I don't think you would be convinced even if I used these methods, given the example you gave."

Well you are right I would not be convinced until I saw the results were replicatible, but if you did use those methods & came to the same conclusion I would give your subjective opinion alot more weight.

"Epistemological hypochondria or chronic doubt may not be the most productive way of ascertaining fact."

Please show me where I doutbed what you said?, I asked for evidence is all, since the only evidence you have is your own subjective experience & is not supported by the bulk of objective evidence in this area now I have doubt.

"can be exported to the study of random people using psychedelics in 'double blind' conditions."

You do not have to use 'random people' in a double blind, you can make your sample as specific as you would like ie you could use just one person who has continuously engaged with the plants and mushrooms over many years. I actualy think this would be the best place to start maybe with a little larger sample size. Also note the double blind I mentioned above did not use 'random people'.

"This is not 'faith' but an old school method, one that has lasted the test of time given its concrete pragmatics."

I do not think your methodology is 'faith' I think the conclusions you reach are based in faith. I think your methodology is very subjective.

"While it is typically thought that spiritual proof is based on 'revelation' and scientific proof based on 'method', there are definite methods involved in yanking your third-eye open, tuning in, and bring-through knowledge about 'hyperspace'"

While there may be a method for what you do the conclusion it is "yanking your third-eye open, tuning in, and bring-through knowledge about 'hyperspace'" is a revelation unsupported by the method & the evidence is far more heavily weighted in it actualy being a drug induced hallucination but maybe you know that when you asked "what way is hyperspace real"- a drug induced halucination.

The mind is a powerful thing I do not know why people give themselves so little credit & insist it must be from some external source.

I love that old quote about Maria Sabina someone who certainly "had continuous engagement with these babies and are generally solid in their views on things." who thought the spirit of the mushrooms was in the psilocybin pills Hoffman had given her.

Heres an interesting eperiment Torsten took part in:

"regarding DMT, I was part of an overseas group some years ago that was selected for a session on the basis of their stance on natural vs synthetic DMT. The others were all spiritual hippy types who felt they could definitely tell the difference between plant spirit and lab product . Of the 8 people only 2 managed to guess which sample was synthetic. One was a guy with fairly open mind about such things and the other was me. The other 6 all picked the synthetic to be highly refined Acacia or MHRB. It showed me once and for all what a wank all this spiritual plant stuff is - it just never stands up to any scrutiny.

Don't get me wrong .... plants are magical, but just like mexican shaman can't tell the difference between synth and natural [pure] compounds, I really doubt anyone else can. And before everyone says that it is easy to tell acacia extract from synth dmt, that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about pure synth vs pure natural, ie where 'intent/spirit/gobbledeegook' is the only variable. In the test it just happened that these dmt gurus couldn't tell the difference between sources, but rather just between grades of products."

http://www.shaman-au...=1

"Acacia courtii being virtually only nn-DMT was sourced from Snu's magnum opus Garden of Eden."

Thanks for that, I'm pretty sure I know who did it, I just want to know the method they used to ascertain it was virtualy pure DMT.

Edited July 2, 2012 by shruman

[Seldom]

for the record,

"Plus, in trying to know psychedelic phenomenology, Nietzsche's critique of democracy (why should people vote if they are not seriously engaged in political discourse) can be exported to the study of random people using psychedelics in 'double blind' conditions."

that's not Nietzsche critique of democracy. His views relate to its production of social formations which enable the weak to collectively constrain the strong. See if you can disagree with a quote, or name the book(s) within which this idea is explained. 'Psychedelic phenomenology' is a joke to anyone who has even an entry level understanding of phenomenological bracketing and eidetic reductions.

i just wanted to point that out, that you don't know what you're talking about, at least in this respect.

Edited July 2, 2012 by bulls on parade

[toby]

For no logical reason, I can understand the closer subjective grouping of obtusifolia and subs, than of obtusifolia and 'cleaner' sources.

[drugo]

@ Shruman.. thnx for such a detailed response.

Yeah my method for the conclusion is subjective and to some extent intersubjective ie. based on talking to certain other ethnobotany geeks. We are convinced of the experiential resonance between subs n obtus., compared to obtus. and chacruna or hostilis. You can place that knowledge where you want.

I'm not sure how you read my words as an affirmation of organic over synthetic chems... but thanks for sharing the interesting study Torsten was in! Steve Beyer comments that some Shipibo aya shamans do 'diets' with asprin and connect with 'the asprin spirit', and there is the petrol spirit, and taking small amounts of arsenic brings certain spirits too according to some Upper Amazonian shamans. Or to tweak it even further, G. Townsley discussing Yaminahua phenomology talks about how shamans meet the spirits of radios and outboard motors. A strange translogical rationality is obviously at play here, one that dwells in old divergent, yet perhaps not incompadible, constructions of personhood and nature (and artifact).

I've recenly found that 25i nbome with then obtus. smokin blend is a divine supernova combo (perhaps given the unique meeting of trypt. and phen.).

Martin Ball, one week after trying 5-meo-dmt for the first time, then had salvia (his preferred psychedelic 'plant teacher') and

mid way through the trip the experience flipped into a 'perfect 5-meo-dmt experience'. Very strange and pehaps helps your argument on the subjectiveness of trips. Yet I am still under the clear persuasion of the resonant sub. obtus. action, and that courtii is quite different to chacruna.

ANd here is one more illogical, qualifed and true statement: The mind is powerful yet so is the world

Edited July 2, 2012 by drugo

[shruman]

Thats no wuckers I appreciate your contributions.

"I'm not sure how you read my words as an affirmation of organic over synthetic chems..."

I don't. I posted that as an example of people who held strong opinions about their ability to discern between two very similiar (in that case maybe identical?) compounds & found their subjective opinion was not supported by the objective evidence.

Like i said I appreciate your opinions, hypothesis & ideas & yours & others subjective experiences I just do'nt appreciate when you represent them as fact. Its not to hard to let others know it is your opinion... so they can put that knowlege in the appropraite place ;)

I to have held opinions like yours maybe still do to some degree, I would like to see them proved or disproved though depending on the evidence.

[drugo]

Psychological methods are not the only guards of the gates of 'fact'. What a constipated universe that would be to 'appreciate'.

Do we need to look to double blind methods to get evidence on whether our perception of the sun rising in the morning is fact? While a blind person may want evidence, those who have seen care little for such methods. This is fact. Not everyone needs be Roman Catholic.

The exact same aya brew can be nothing one night to a bunch of people then mega strong the next, sometimes strong for some people and not for others then vice versa the next/same night or next/previous cup or even beginning and end of the hour can switch like crazy. Obvioulsy these realities perplex double blind methods and suggest that the phenomenological action of ayahuasca is sometimes relative to strange unknown variables or even is functioning with logics that transcend ordinary perception and thus transcend the methods we use for ordinary or empirical investigation such as gathering mean data of populations under double blind.

[toast]

interesting thread....

[Seldom]

this could also be studied using a single blind .. most psych research that gets ethical clearance is either therapeutic trials or pseudo-phenomenological like this by Cott and Rock (Dr Rock!) http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32137

unfortunately you'll probably never get ethical clearance for a comparative study like the one you describe, even if they are qualitatively distinct

the ultimate way to study it would be in looking how acacia and synthetic molecules bind with receptors, find which if any has a greater affinity .. my suspicions are neither would, but who's to say that even if they did, that would it consistently correlate with reports of plant teachers.

we need more guerilla scientists!

[∂an]

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must

Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines.

I don't think we should rush to the scientific method (e.g. double blind studies) to further our understanding of psychoactive plants, although it is certainly useful for investigating pharmacodynamics for example. There is more to a psychedelic experience than what alkaloid or spectrum of alkaloids are introduced to the synapse. The alkaloids may make the psychedelic state of mind possible, but the character of the visions seems to be driven more by more esoteric forces; the people and energies in the immediate vicinity, the phase of the plants and stars, the extent to which the individual having the experience participated in the preparation of the sacrament etc. For example if we imagine 3 people who each ingest exactly the same amount of DMT and harmine, but one synthesised the alkaloids themselves in their own lab, one extracted from plants they grew themselves and one did mail order, I am sure each will have experiences coloured by this. And three people with the same method of preparation will probably have different experiences again due to the unique and infinite set of preconditions for each individual.

By just controlling a handful of usually materialistic variables, pharmacological blind studies totally disregard this nuance of the psychedelic experience. Thats not to say these type of studies are useless, but that they should not be our only tool for understanding how things work. The other tool is intuition.

Edited July 3, 2012 by kalika

[folias]

Torsten,

a few replies to some of your points.

>Unlike smoked dmt [which should always be started at highest dose and worked backwards]

well, I'm sure a lot of people diagree with you there. I know quite a few people who started with smoked DMT and then got so freaked out, they never returned to that place again. say with Changa, you can make friends with it and go deeper when you want to. I don't know of anyone who can maintain control on high dose!

>Peganum has a dirty, toxic and sedative side effect,

Not if you get a good batch! Good batches should feel like pure bliss. Bad batches are going to be like what you are talking about.

Unfortunatley, most batches are kind of shit!

>There are preparations that try and capture the middle ground, such as MAOI inhibited yopo snuffs and MAOI inhibited smoked dmt [changa]. They may suit some people. personally I feel they remove the uniqueness of smoked dmt, mess with the time compaction, and also don't provide much time to work with the experience. ie these preparations seem to enhance the entertainment aspect, but diminish the therapeutic aspects of the smoked vs oral extremes.

Thing is that when you smoke DMT with Ayahuasca and herbs, there is an innate therapeutic effect, even if the intention of the individual is "recreational".

And I agree with you re: ayahuasca, the whole idea of ritual is baloney. The indigenous people when they drink in Brazil just talk and sing and hang out. It is western people who want to be formal and have a masonic/satanic kind of ritual. When the brazilian shaman comes to the west, he will sing songs and it will be a more formal space for the gringos.

The ritual is drinking the ayahuasca. Rather than having one guy sing his traditional songs, I feel it is better to play the extraordinary range or music that humantity creates. This works best I feel.

At the end of the day, you are sitting up or sitting down, having an experience. It is only stupid white people who feel that some sort of "structure" is required so they don't have to let go of their mind structures and confront themselves!

Julian.

[opiumfreak]

Seeing as possessing or making Huasca or Ayahuasca is illegal in Australia, you might not get many people willing to incriminate themselves by answering your question.

I'm sure there are initiated members of Santo Daime in Australia. But the fact that the sacrament itself is highly illegal makes it something that can't be discussed in an open forum. Other aspects such as what members of this church believe and what their religious practices are, are both topics that people here might be happy to discuss at length.

Why your particular interest in Santo Daime? I was initially attracted by the use of Ayahuasca. But I was also put off by their Christian and Catholic influences.

 

wow this is so cool Im really interested in catholicism and Jesuits in particular So, what is Santo Daime, a church? tell me more please

[Savage Gardener]

never mind me

Edited July 5, 2012 by EssEllBee

[Micromegas]

And I agree with you re: ayahuasca, the whole idea of ritual is baloney.

Folias, I respect much of what you have to say and enjoy much of your contribution to this forum, but the above statement is very exagerrated. You obviously have a long and profound relationship with ayahuasca (and other plants), which is yours and yours alone (as is the relationship of all who come to work with ayahuasca, however long or brief the work), and I respect your right to an opinion and also what you have learnt through work with the medicine, and everyone who shares this opinion; but I think it is important to present a counterpoint to this notion of ritual as baloney. From my perspective, to truly get the most from ayahuasca, the "ritual" (I am not a fan of that word but i'll use it as proxy for the moment), and the knowledge of the one conducting the ritual, is more important than the drink itself. Rather than "drinking the ayahuasca being the ritual", I have found the opposite to be true. If the process of coming to the medicine is structured and mediated by a blanco curandero or a person at that level of understanding of the medicine, one can enter a profound state during ceremony without even drinking the ayahuasca, simply through focussed attention on the icaros. How deep one can go is only limited by one's ability to focus. While there are many traditions that do not use icaros as part of their ceremony, in those cultures that do the importance of the icaros cannot be overstated: the icaros carry medicine of the forest - the icaros carry deep knowledge the curandero has learnt through long periods of retreat and reflection, encompassing a vast number of plant (and other) intelligences at a mind-boggling level of sophistication. Icaros are not merely "songs" and it is limiting to think of them in this way. Indeed, the best curanderos eventually have no need of the medicine in its liquid form and provide healing directly through the use of the icaros in ceremony. That is when integration between that sphere and everyday life becomes driven and whole, and that is the true sign of the maestro curandero. I am talking here about pre-columbian forms of core amazonian shamanism, of which it is difficult to find true maestros. As my teacher said to me many times: It is NOT all in the cup. Truly understanding that is still part of my journey and life's work. This applies almost as equally to Huachuma and the mesada, particularly in its non-syncretic pre-columbian form. It is not westernising shamanism that needs to happen here but the shamanisation of westernism. We will wander away from the core without a foundational understanding of the old traditions and the methods used to derive a depth of understanding of the true nature of these plants, which is to say, of the world we inhabit. For me, when ceremonies are not conducted in a rigorous manner and are not "set-up" appropriately we risk the danger of becoming lost in intractable worlds. This is especially true for our culture, in which there is very little context for "spiritual experience". The properly structured ceremony allows both confrontation and - just as importantly - resolution of the lessons and healing received. It also allows a deep disentangling of physical illness created through repsressed emotional content over our lives or lifetimes (or other causes of which there are many) in a much more direct way than just "downing a brew and kicking back" (not your words, quotation added for emphasis), and often involves delicate intervention on the part of the curandero and techniques that are difficult to master and risky to perform. As I said and respect, you obviously have a deep relationship with the medicine that is yours personally and yours alone, but we too often write-off ritual because we do not understand what an expertly facilitated ceremony can be like; the process of learning that skill is so long and arduous most would baulk at the opportunity, myself included. I am not only a "stupid white person", I am also a firm believer in the use of "ritual" that is full of knowledge, awareness and skill. However, having said all that a ritual done badly is worse than no ritual at all; that may be where our disdain for ritual arises - a lack of exposure to skillful practicioners. I would rather work with ayahuasca alone than particiapte in a group ceremony that is poorly conducted, though I would recommend neither of those options to someone seeking to work with this medicine for the first time. In a group situation there is always the very real possibility of negative energetic transferrence between participants unfamiliar with the space, especially in the case of ayahuasca, despite its innate medicinal qualities. This is why arcanas are used and probably why your Brazilian friends have a formal ceremony when working with "gringos" from outside their immediate circle of friendship. By no means is this an attack on anyone who believes ritual is nonsense. Because in the final analysis, it really is up to the individual to decide how they approach this work, and also on the part of the plants themselves in what they present to us. And this is why I am going to check out of the discussion now: because this is fundamentally a personal issue and the plants in conjuction with our personal nature will dictate for us how we proceed in exploring other realms and whether we believe in the spirit of the plant or not, and what, if any, ritual we choose to apply to our experience. All opinions are valid and I respect that. For me personally, ritual conducted well (and conducted poorly, and not at all conducted) has shown me where I believe the full spectrum of this, and other plant medicine, fully unfolds, without limit... and for me, sitting up and laying down are aeons of worlds apart. Not all plants are equal in this respect: some require more methodology than others, but set and setting is in all cases critical. For those seeking initial work with ayahuasca, be cautious of those with whom you wish to drink the medicine, whether jungle shaman, Santo Daime or an informal circle in our own country; a badly done ceremony can do more harm than good, and that is NOT an attack on anyone just an alternate point of view to consider; you cannot just drink ayahuasca (or Huachuma, or many other sacraments) and expect everything to turn out peachy as a matter of course. It might turn out to be a transformative experience, but you might just end up with the opposite. But really it is only the individual who can decide how to approach the medicine based on their own nature, experience and belief system. For me, however, I reinterate: It is not all in the cup. Really interesting thread people so thanks. All the best, Micro.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Micromegas

[folias]

>but we too often write-off ritual because we do not understand what an expertly facilitated ceremony can be like;

I've drunk with many who are considered the best in the world.

But for me, the indigenous people (who often don't sing icaros) and those who minise interference, and truly respect the power of the plants, above the human ego - win out for me.

I happen to believe the medicine is best left in the cup, and additional medicine performed by a curandero is fine by me, but don't believe it is necessary for effective medicinal work to occur.

Too many people are coming to this work, seeking a saintly "Don Juan", seeking a craft, seeking an importance, something to hang their hat on. Something to make complex and twist their mind around.

when the fact of it, is largely a whole bunch of dudes out of their integrity, seeking money, sex and power and fighting each other! Sure, there are exceptions, but they are the 2% or whatever it is.

But the white people buy it, walking on their egg shells, because they *want* the structure and are afraid of what they will find outside of THAT.

I'm not against Icaros, and can appreciate the craft, but too often they are not well sung! I would prefer to hear other music, like Solar Fields, which I find a lot more effective!

This whole field, of giving ayahuasca to gringos has only existed for a few decades! at the very most! It is a mestizo concoction!

I'm largely appalled by the preciousness, arrogance and pretention of the patriarchal Ayahuasca worldl so full of certainty and dogma!

And they buy what the curanderos tell them, you need *us*, to protect you, from where the wild things are!

Too often the white people who do this, tune their strings too tight! and are too uptight, lack humour and flexibility.

>From my perspective, to truly get the most from ayahuasca, the "ritual" (I am not a fan of that word but i'll use it as proxy for the moment), and the knowledge of the one conducting the ritual, is more important than the drink itself.

Yes, and "they" want you to buy that and want you to see them as a conductor. But then we turn to them, and their ego, and there is a distortion. I feel.

and of course they will explain and diss how others go about giving ayahuasca, telling you of all the horrible things that could happen, if they were not there to look after and "protect" you from all the bad things that come up! I'm down with the supersticious talk - I just think people are insecure and afraid of getting real. Afraid of facing what is out there without their "training wheel shamans"! But the fact is, we must face what is out there, and inside us, and nobody is going to hold our hand or "guide" us, or make it all wonderful with ritual. It is hard work, and work we must essentially do alone if we are to become mature.

Julian.

[∂an]

Ritual doesn't necessarily mean participating in a group situation facilitated by a curandero. It can be as simple as taking some time to tidy up the space, blow some smoke, and meditate on what is about to follow. Its all about focusing your intention.

[∂an]

wow this is so cool Im really interested in catholicism and Jesuits in particular So, what is Santo Daime, a church? tell me more please

 

Santo Daime is one of a handful of syncretic catholic-indigenous churches operating in the Americas. It is 100% legal in brazil. As far as I know its the more open minded of these churches, with UDV being more attracted to the catholic style church. Lots of info online.

[phyllode]

folias wrote:

And I agree with you re: ayahuasca, the whole idea of ritual is baloney. The indigenous people when they drink in Brazil just talk and sing and hang out. It is western people who want to be formal and have a masonic/satanic kind of ritual. When the brazilian shaman comes to the west, he will sing songs and it will be a more formal space for the gringos.

 

This a not completely acurate and in some cases plain wrong assessment. There is plenty of published anthropological data on Amazonian 'initiation' and tribal ceremonies. Many plants are kept secret from most people. And these people emphasize the 'dieta' bigtime, for weeks. Not very 'western' at all.

A handful of elders in a few tribes maintain the pre-Spanish traditions of Ayahuasca. Neither the Mestizo culture of the last few hundred years, nor the gradual westernisation of indigenous tribes, can be taken as a guide to the previous 20,000 years use of the vine.

Lastly, a species mentioned earlier has an estimated 400 mature adults in the wild, in only 2 locations. It is almost the highest category of endangered/vulnerable, way more so than Phlebophylla, and it is appalling people are talking about harvesting this species.

There's some real rot set in to the Aussie scene, both in 'ayahuasca' circles and 'dmt'.

[drugo]

They were harvested from fallen trees/branches

Edited July 6, 2012 by drugo

[folias]

I'm glad that a few are understanding the complete difference between DMT from different sources.

Some would be aware there is a species in Australia, called the Pious Armchair Gumnut (PAG), which is unfortunately rather common. such types are surprisingly homogenous, exceedingly precious, judgemental, egotistically and humourously political and petty, tending to be cagey, and at once gossipy and normally out of touch with reality, its variables and nature because of an overt theoretical and impractical nature. But this does not mean they are bad people, they have good sides too; you could certainly trust them with your chickens! (at least I think you could...)

This a not completely acurate and in some cases plain wrong assessment. There is plenty of published anthropological data on Amazonian 'initiation' and tribal ceremonies.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean that modern day indigenous people do not drink ayahuasca in the way that I mentioned

Many plants are kept secret from most people. And these people emphasize the 'dieta' bigtime, for weeks. Not very 'western' at all.

 

not all the time, I find the indigenous people to be often very casual when they give you ayahuasca, and they are more inclined to see that it is all in the cup. even santo daime people I have drunk with say that, that it is all in the medicine and not in what they do. the diet is a more mestizo thing, as the diet (in terms of the food element) is largely taking out of a lot of western element (sugar, salt, alcohol etc)

A handful of elders in a few tribes maintain the pre-Spanish traditions of Ayahuasca. Neither the Mestizo culture of the last few hundred years, nor the gradual westernisation of indigenous tribes, can be taken as a guide to the previous 20,000 years use of the vine.

And it is hard to find that. I met a guy who searches out indigenous tribes deep in the rainforrest and go and drink Ayahuasca with the old men who kept the old indigenous understanding alive. He said, they would go into the "dreamtime" and tell him the dreamtime stories of their people.

Julian.