When I referred to a shaman, I was really referring to a tribal person who uses plants to communicate with "The Spirit World", rather than a neo-shaman in a more contemporary/urban setting. Therefore I was implying that shamans would not generally extract freebase DMT (that I know of) due to lack of knowledge or chemicals or simply because brewing ayahuasca is tradition and more eco-friendly.


Well as you know oral brews generally have caapi/rue as the main ingredients, and DMT (in the form of p. viridis or others) is usually only an admixture, if included at all. Therefore an oral brew experience would be inherently different from a freebase DMT experience. I'm not suggesting that freebase DMT differs from the DMT used in the oral brews, but that the experience obviously would be. I imagine the freebase DMT experience would be a lot more intense, albeit for a shorter period.

So the main point of my question was to ascertain a tribal shaman's point of view on the validity, usefulness and moral issues towards freebase DMT.

For example, alcohol drinkers may appreciate a fine wine or whiskey for its flavour and individual effects. Yet most would agree that drinking pure alcohol is a ridiculous notion.

Ah! This is an interesting question indeed. Thank you for clarifying.

Having not worked with tribal shamans I cannot speak to this -- however, I would be interested to hear Olympus Mon or Antrocles take on the issue. Both have recent experience working with native shamans in South America and if I'm not mistaken, both brought the issue up when there.

Sorry, I have never worked with a traditional shaman and I have no resources to directly address your question (other than the already addressed McKenna quote. And I thought he called it 'the lesser lights' not 'The Bardo'. Perhaps both, he admittedly is constantly paraphrasing the same ideas over and over). I'll share my 2c anyways

I view it similar to my views on food, or anything else i wish to put in my body. Every processing step is another step away from nature: the earth, the sun, the wind, etc.

Also, extracting DMT is a procedure of isolation which separates the DMT from the context in which it naturally occurs. DMT is not the only psychoactive alkaloid in ayahuasca, or even the plants used as sources for DMT alone. The qualitative differences between jimjam and white spice speak to this.

I also think of how ayahuasca is named for the caapi and not for the DMT, and how some shaman don't even use DMT in their brews. Then there is also virola resin- which also does not contain merely DMT.

The worlds of plant-intelligence based on profiles, and psychedelic compounds based on separation and isolation are completely different ways of approaching the subject and both stand to learn much from each other.

I feel the specific compounds have far more specific, perhaps even narrow, effects. Kind of like how we might use cold water extractions with the herbal percolator in order to decrease nausea where the shaman view the purge as an integral part of the experience.

I guess it depends on where you go and what you want/need/have to do.

Somewhere inside, I feel like these isolated compounds such as DMT, or semi synthetics such as LSD, are really just The Other trying to get us back to the plants. Would the world have listened to a crazy primitive savage witnessed having convulsions and vomiting profusely in a state of ecstatic trance, spitting and blowing smoke on the people they are "curing."?

Was it easier to let the scientists, in a lab, with a world renowned name synthesize a chemical being researched as a potential drug- a concept our society felt familiar and safe with? I feel like far more of us have tried DMT than ayahuasca, and it appears to be more likely to have tried DMT first, then seeking out ayahuasca. We have become so far removed from natures rhythms that she is calling us back in our own language.

None of this should imply that one side is more true than the other, just the ramblings of my mind.

We all have our own views and are entitled to it, of course, but I must disagree



If shamans agreed, they wouldnt make a brew with the plant. A brew = a crude isolation of the plant. They could just chew the caapi or similar, as some do IIRC, but they chose to make a preparation in which they throw the plant material away (and with it, some compounds that are not water soluble).

Also, there are many examples of very complex psychoactive preparations in the indigenous world. For example some snuffs, that they get only a specific part of some plants, drying in certain way, mixing with calcinated shells, etc. So not only they are not using the whole plant in its 'natural' form but they are also changing its chemical state by freebasing it with a base.




IMO thats self-suggestion and/or related to natural variation of trips independent of batch and/or related to vaporization method and efficiency due to impurities in jimjam protecting the DMT. Unless people do blind test, I dont think we can really make any absolute affirmation regarding this.

I think this natural vs synthetic (or processed or however you name this) debate is based on fallacies, as it has been debated a few times here, for example: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=31852

I think it's all about context and its case-by-case, we cant say the natural way is good, the processed bad, and neithr the other way around. For example potatos you cant eat them raw in their 'natural' state, they arent really digestible and even have toxic glycoalkaloids, which break down with heating. There are many other such examples. So again, we need to look at it case-by-case.

As a1pha quoted from me, I gave DMT to some shaman from the amazon and he absolutely loved it. He also loved seeing his snuff through a pocket microscope I had. Many of the indigenous people dont want to be artificially isolated and maintained "primitive" like some westerners seem to want, they are eager to learn about the western world. Of course many are also being 'consumed' in the process, just taking up anything from the outside world without a critical selection, losing their identity in the process and acquiring all sorts of physical, psychological and social sickness in that process... But this isnt always the case, many are also aware and careful, and are able to take in only what is in tune and beneficial for their way.
In the same way, many westerners acritically absorb anything indigenous as if its The Truth, without adapting to their context and thinking about it in a critical way. So I guess its up to us to try to give the best possible influence if and when we are in contact with indigenous people, as well as learning from the other perspective, questionning and translating to our context and life.

>_<, I clarified my own confusion in my next post.

I don't know what I saw that made it make sense to me at the time, but I was confused that you'd be confused.

Utter fail on my part.

---



How the western world is viewed by those with little knowledge of it really interests me, and it's a sad thought that some get swept away and lose their own culture in it. Reminds me of the Cargo Cults I've read about.

As far as westerners blindly adopting other cultural practices without much thought, that also has always bothered me, but it also annoys me when some people blindly criticize anyone who incorporates aspects of other cultures they appreciate into their own life as if the original people have some exclusive right.

I'm really curious to hear more about what you know endlessness about their views and interpretations of our culture. Those with minimal exposure to it, though still not unbiased, are more likely to look at it from a clearer perspective.

Yea I've always wondered how they view us and prolly wonder why we act so weird to them.