this guy on youtube said you can take 2 grams on syrian rue ground out in gel caps wait 30 minutes and take a gram of mamosa hostilas powder in gel caps then wait another 30 minutes and take another gram of mamosa hostilas power in caps and after 30 minutes if you feel nothing possibly take another gram of mh powder......this seems like the easiest way, anyone try that? it is weird i have never heard of this technique anywhere

here is the video please do not flag it seems to be a good video.
video

Will it work it like this? Sure.
Will it get best results? Probably not.

I think brewing the tea's should be an integrated part of the whole experience. It helps you develop respect for the plants, and placing you in a better state of mind to be accepting of what they have to show you.

it seems to be so much more efficient if it really is the amounts the guy in video is saying.....any comments in regards to that?

2 gr of rue is low, but could do something though.
Yet all that raw plant matter is going to make for a rough sick ride, more sick-ish than necessary. But hey you could try and report.

the comments on the video are really good i think if you remove all the fibrous stuff and have only powder it should be ok

Sorry; It isn't Ayahuasca unless it contains vine.

I would think that the cells of the un lysed plant material would make the alkaloids difficult to absorb, and take longer to kick in than a brew. Take this into considertation when planning the time frame which you set for your trip.

I've eaten powdered syrian rue seeds followed by an acacia brew, which was very effective, but the whole time I had a belly ache and swore to simply brew a tea which has always been gentler and quicker in alkaloid absorption. With raw powdered materials the effect is much longer, much like eating mushrooms vs tea.

I'd be concerned about eating powdered mimosa, not only because it would be tough on the gut, but in ms_manic_minxx's All About Aya thread she notes there have been toxic reactions to undecanted mimosa sludge.

I've read stuff like that too in other forum, but could not find a link. Caution with the raw materials!

No Ayahuasca in the brew.... Would probably work depending on what you want to get from the experience. I personally dont really mind the taste of Ayahuasca with chacruna - maybe rue and mimosa tastes worse... I like the unique personality each brew has personally though - I think something magical happens during the brewing process.... That's one of the reasons I dont use San Pedro powder but always make tea - something magical happens during the cook that is just missing for me in the powder....

Efficient use of time but an inefficient use of your material. By skipping the boiling (extraction) process you are leaving it to your stomach acids to do the job for you. I picture a much slower come up and a less intense trip because of this. It's worth it to learn how to brew the traditional way, at a bare minimum decanting your brew leaves a lot of the undesirables out of your tea and severly lessons the stomach pain. If you want to get the most out of your trip, spending the entire time squirming around in pain until you completely digest the material is a bad idea.

OP, check out this post:https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=52019. Or search: Recreational anahuasca powdered mhrb acrb chaliponga. Nexian, Hjortron has done the work.

Oh. Bother.

What if it isn't made from fresh vine, so it still has all the spirit? What if it wasn't brewed and/or administered by a real shaman who meanwhile sang all the right icaros to load it up with the right vibrations and spirits? What if it wasn't drank in the Amazon basin? Etc etc etc...

There are forums where those distinctions are greatly valued and Most Highly Respected, where ayahuasca is treated more as a religion than as a science.

IMHO it is more interesting as a science.

Caapi and Rue are two different things, although similar .

She is only present in the vine. That's not religion that's a fact that I have witnessed.

If you've never met her then I totally understand where your coming from.

It's even more complex: caapi and caapi can be two different things, depending on variety, age, microclimate and possibly time of harvest. Similarly, rue and rue can be two different things.


Oh well, shall I tell you about the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door? They had an entirely different interpretation of "personal belief/experience" and "objectively experimental fact" than I do...

Perhaps we could all agree that there are many "ayahuascas", some of which could be more precisely called a formosahuasca, some a pharmahuasca and others a psilohuasca, and then some others a "traditional ayahuasca".

If we can, then I promise (for now) that I won't be nitpicking about "which particular tradition".

Ayahuasca means vine of souls or something similar.... Rue isnt a vine. Might sound like semantics, but I wouldnt call my mint tea green tea just because they are both teas.

I think it makes sense that Ayahuasca should have Ayahuasca in it. I think names like pharmahuasca or ruehuasca would make more sense for rue brews..... Helps discussion a lot if people know what you are talking about.

OP, I would suggest rectal administration of a slurry.





OK, so that's a joke .

Taking the time to make a brew is worthwhile, as intention is more important than "efficiency".

Here I agree about the etymology of Ayahuasca. That is the name it was given in the amazon basin, initially referring to a plant, then also a concoction (possibly containing various other plants) and for some even more generally a practice (doing ayahuasca, being an ayahuascero).

But now the whole thing is no longer limited to the amazon basin and while the word ayahuasca travels around the globe and meets new people and new plants, the meaning of the term ayahuasca is changing along. It is something that happens with living languages.


Well there you go! You called both of them a tea. But "tea" originally meant Camellia Sininsis leaves. Later it also meant an infusion of Camellia Sinensis leaves, but not an infusion of mint leaves. Of course, presently everyone understands what you mean with mint tea and green tea. A purist claiming that it is not correct to refer to anything but an infusion of Camellia Sinensis leaves as "tea" would be frowned or giggled upon.


There are certainly differences between all these, but more importantly there are also similarities. IMHO these are more important than the differences. Since we don't seem to have a generic term for these similarities, "ayahuasca" has become the de facto generic name. I think it should be meant as an honoring of the Ayahuasca tradition to do so, not a sacrilege.

BTW, "huasca" means "vine", "aya" refers to "soul" (or whatever it means outside of the amazon basin - it is much harder to translate than an object like "vine" is). "Rue-vine" makes no sense, maybe harmalaya and psilaya are what you would like to use. Well good luck with that, you can see yourself how the common mind is already hooked to huasca as a unifying generic term.

No, it's just being used incorrectly. Ayahuasca is a name for the vine, Banisteriopsis caapi, and for a tea made with that vine.

Syrian Rue is a name for Peganum harmala, which is a totally different plant.

When you refer to a preparation of Rue as Ayahuasca, you are calling it by a name that refers to something else...

That's like calling San Pedro, Peyote, which is obviously incorrect.

Soooo... esfanjurema, anyone? Basouscabrera? Peganumimosa, even?