An interesting observation by Terence McKenna: he said that ayahuasca shamans in the Amazon know what mushrooms are - they just never use them because of how superior ayahuasca is over mushrooms.

36:45 - 37:07

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzd_nRnCrBU

You know, I once stumbled upon a tier list of psychedelic substances, which struck me as incredibly odd. Comparing natural psychedelics on the basis of their "superiority", whatever that means, is kinda funny to me. Don't see the point. Different tools with different physical and psychological effects, suited for different jobs done by different people.

Bottom line is, just take them and don't bother with some illusory superiority of one over another.

Possibly a valid critique of the idea. Could be that the shamans he spoke to were saying that for the work they did, ayahuasca was a better tool. Begs the question though: what would ayahuasca be better for? What could mushrooms perhaps be better for?

MDMA clearly seems like the statistically most reliable tool for trauma therapy, ibogaine for addiction therapy, etc.

I feel like shamanic psychedelic tool use isn’t as easy to understand as the above two substances though.

It is a good question, no doubt. I don't have that much experience with natural psychedelics, yet it seems to me that each one of them has an identifiable feminine or otherwise energy to them. I suppose different intentions would align better with different archetypes of energy. If one feels like they need to find love for themselves, for example, one would rationally turn to the feminine, motherly energy of Aya. Analogously, if one seeks wisdom and guidance through some rite of passage, one might turn to the grandfatherly energy of Mescaline.

I don't think we can categorize them, really. Even those that have worked with them for decades admit they haven't the slightest clue on how or why they work. Maybe that's the idea - not knowing. Knowledge comes at a price, for nothing in life, save perhaps for the void itself, is truly free of consequence.


One might say MDMA is rather well-researched and understood, but I could never say the same about ibogaine. It's still a very mysterious substance. We know roughly how it works from a physiological standpoint, but the mystical experiences it induces, and the profound changes its proper use leads to, are still far off into the mist ahead. Hopefully one day we will understand it better.

Me either Some of what you said also reminds me of this thread.

I'm wondering if this is an instance in which he is talking about a specific group that holds this idea in the Amazon, or if at one time or another his information or perspective has flipped, as I feel I recollect him talking about mushroom use in Amazonian practices as well.

There is more that one practice as there are several groups in South American regions that work with the Aya medicine.

One love

But "ayahuasca" can refer to caapi, caapi with chacruna or chaliponga, or caapi with other plants that do not even contain DMT.

When people in the west talk about "ayahuasca", they usually mean caapi+DMT. And caapi+DMT is in many ways very simmilar to shrooms because of the DMT. So we tend to think that ayahuasca is about the DMT. But traditionally, caapi has always been considered the main, and sometimes even the only, constituent of "ayahuasca".

That is a very important distinction. The more subtle visionary effects of caapi are more important in traditional shamanic practices, than the not so subtle fireworks of DMT or shrooms.

That's an excellent point.

And not to forget that plants and mushrooms have spirits. Each are teachers and allies in their own domains.

Anyhow, Ayahuasca does have no tolerance and higher general compatibility with the human nervous system.

I've only experience brewed rue, and not brewed caapi, however, and all the same, it's as though the components of harmalas that drive us towards mindfulness and awareness are almost always of higher importance than the spectacular and alien aspects of the visual facets of the experience.


One love

The same definately applies to rue. Caapi and rue are very simmilar, though i personally find rue a more powerfull plant.

It's probably because rue has over a dozen different harmala alkaloids in it, and they tend to work synergistically.

Harmala's also have more medicinal qualities and applications than DMT. I think that may also have contributed greatly to the status caapi as a plant has in the regions around the amazon.

This is why, while I am absolutely love with DMT (and thank DMT for helping me find harmalas), I've grown to love harmalas just as much.

With the conversation focusing on the not-so-spectacular aspects of these journeys, I wonder how much that impacts my low dosing forays of changa for the past few years.

One love

Fair enough. Although, mescaline cacti certainly are used by ayahuasca using indigenous groups, without adding caapi…
And if it were just a matter of adding caapi… why wouldn’t they just pop an appropriate amount of mushrooms into a caapi brew?

Has anyone heard of ayahuasca using groups also using mushrooms, the way they also use mescaline cacti? I’ve personally never heard of it, I’ve only heard of Mexican groups using mushrooms! And I’ve never heard of mixing cactus with caapi…

Caapi and tobacco are definitely both important… but if caapi’s so crucial, why no cactus+caapi/mushrooms+caapi?
And why the use of cactus but not mushroom if not that ayahuasca is just regarded as better than mushroom?

If they know what mushrooms are the simplest answer to me would seem to be: cactus offers something ayahuasca does not, so it is used alongside ayahuasca, but mushrooms more or less get at what ayahuasca does, but less ably so… so ayahuasca is used, but mushrooms are not.

1) The DMT harmala synergy is more harmonious with the human nervous system than the mushroom synergy and there is the issue of tolerance with mushrooms which prevents going deep with continuous consecutive use which is part of Ayahuasca traditions.

2) Mushrooms have a more dominant spirit than do DMT plants which really act as pure light/helper to caapi. The plants have their own flavors but act in service to caapi.

3) Finding a lot of mushrooms consistently is not guaranteed, harvesting plants for continuous and large scale use is very possible.

What indigenous groups are you referring to that use both cactus and Ayahuasca? I only know of the Quechuas, and as far as I know, the highland dwelling Quechuas use the local cactus whereas the amazonian dwelling Quechuas use the local Ayahuasca and its a matter of plain availability of plants in the local ecosystem.

I’m referring less to individual groups and more to Fernando Cabieses’ claim that there are basically three psychoactive plants used in Peru: cactus, ayahuasca, and brugmansia. I remember it as a pan-regional claim but I could definitely be mistaken.

You raise some good points. The one explanation I’d be most compelled by would be: there’s always ayahuasca and/or cactus to be harvested, why forage for mushrooms? I’m still not entirely satisfied with that explanation though. Sure, easier access, but Mexican groups don’t seem to have *too* much difficulty with foraging…

Tobacco is the number one psychoactive magical plant used in the Amazon. How could that be left out in such a list?

Psychoactivity is in countless plants. If we are talking about psychoactivity, the list would be very long, and the list provided above seems more like a modern biased "hallucinogenic" and familiar plant filter.

In the end, Ayahuasca combined with DMT plants is superior to mushrooms alone or combined with Ayahuasca for the amazonians. There has been an obscure report of a lichen containing psilocybin being used somewhere in the Amazon though.

I meant to mention tobacco as I bonded with some hape during my meditation last night Combined with cannabis and harmalas makes for a lovely meditation

One love

Tobacco is for sure the most important plant for virtually all indigenous groups from Peru up to Canada. There are some exceptions but they are rare. Tobacco is pretty well a universal across South, Central, and North American indigenous groups.

I avoid it because it is also incredibly toxic and addictive (even without the chemical additives in commercial tobacco). I’d be down with the addiction and early death if it was only sudden death, but the more likely scenario of prolonged agonizing death and/or mutilation keeps me away. It’s a shame. I prefer it over cannabis and caffeine and alcohol by a large margin, and it does synergize wonderfully with psychedelics, particularly ayahuasca.

Can't lie, I have a weird relationship with tobacco that I'm trying to change. While definitely addicted and have been for a long time (used to smoke cigarettes, now I vape and the use pouches to vape less), I also thoroughly love tobacco.

I sure do love my cannabis

Caffeine is an ally helping me through the day with my fatigue. However, I may "need" it less now that my testosterone levels are balancing.

One love

This is an interesting topic… if we’re talking about cubensis mushrooms growing on cow dung, these mushrooms may not have existed in those areas before cattle were brought over, which would account for their lack of traditional use…

Presumably, the Mazatec adapted cubes to their culture because of a preexisting tradition of mushroom use, which may not have existed in the Amazon…

I don’t think mushrooms and Ayahuasca are interchangeable, but there is obviously some overlap between them…

This should be answered by Amazon shamans directly to exactly know what they meant, but I fully agree with the idea that ayahuasca is superior to mushrooms.

IMO caapi is main plant in the mix, it's the master or teacher plant, and this is both for any dmt plant or shrooms.
That is the reason why I ingest mushrooms exclusively in combination with caapi (psilohuasca).

Do we know what is the general attitude of Amazon people towards mushrooms? Maybe there is some mycophobic cultural factor involved.