The Key is the Container - Ruminations on a Creative Approach to Re-Contextualizing Sacred Mushrooms

As pertains to the qualitative differences between cubensis and the more traditional strains of Psilocybe, in Huautla de Jimenez cubensis is the only mushroom referred to exclusively by it's Spanish--versus Mazatec, name 'San Isidro'; cubensis came with the Spanish and their cattle, and is widely considered the least desirable of the species. The patron saint of labor, farming and livestock, San Isidro is emblematic of the invaders and livestock-culture. Contrary to Wasson's suggestion that the term 'derrumbe' is exclusive to Ps. caerulescens, I heard the term derrumbe applied to both Ps. caerulescens and Ps. zapotecorum. From what I gathered, the 'derrumbe' mushrooms were largely considered the most coveted and desirable, owing to their fuerza/force. Ps. zapotecorum seemed generally to be the most coveted species; they are very strong, quite vivid in the visions, my initial impression was that of friendliness, but they are very serious and powerful. The clearest vision that stands out from my initial experience with the zapotecorum was of seeing highly detailed psychocosmic roses pouring off the altar; it was quite striking, vivid and beautiful. It's a mexican and indigenous mushroom through and through. I think some of the difference is apparent in the respective terminologies for los derrumbes and los pajaritos; the mexicana has more of an ethereal character that seems to evoke interstellar and deep-space vistas. My first time eating the 'chicon nindo' variety of Ps. mexicana--which I brought back from Mexico with me, when I closed my eyes I saw the outline of a cosmic horizon cast in subtle blues. It appeared to be some manner of astral star-city with a new Jerusalem theme, the streets were quiet and there was an aura of deep calm about the scenario. The zapotecorum--by contrast, was more chthonic and perhaps iconically 'shamanic.'

There are reasonably solid and good strains of cubensis, people seem to develop a preference for this or that strain grown in this or that way. I spontaneously and unwittingly became partial to strains of cubensis that were mostly sourced from the Amazon; after sourcing my preferred cubensis genetics, I realized I had a predilection for Amazonian strains. I suppose on a certain level cubensis is a 'universal' mushroom, and convenient. Once basic adjustments are made to technique, Ps. mexicana is just about as easy to grow though it can take a bit more in the way of patience. They require more air-flow while maintaining high humidity, and seem to benefit greatly from supplemental blue LED light in the ~452nm wavelength range. The blue-LED light has been observed to stabilize and normalize their development and morphology in the fruiting-phase. The onset and quality of the experience with mexicana is somehow more 'classical' to what I consider to be the psilocybin-state. One of the major differences is in onset, where cubensis can elicit an uncomfortable rush of patterned and somewhat forceful-viral-alienesque visions, mexicana elicits more of a spacious, calm and welcoming openness. I have uniformly experienced mexicana to be calm, spacious, open, relaxed and deep where cubensis can become unusually dark or forceful. Between the two, I'm definitely settled on mexicana in so far as providing a positive and beneficial experience. I have alot of the younger generation asking questions about the optimal approach to psilocybin mushrooms. In terms of providing guidance and direction to others, I have what I feel is an ethical responsibility to guide people towards mexicana, which I have consistently found does in fact provide a more beneficient, calm and peaceful experience more conducive to the sorts of mystical experience observed in the griffiths study.

In the hopes of putting the final nail into the coffin of this 'elf/fairey' issue, from W.B. Yeats 'The Stolen Child,'

Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

I think it important to keep in mind that 'the fairey faith' is a folk-tradition with it's own history, folklore, art and imagery. People seem to get caught up in the imagery and treat it on either anachronistic terms, or view it outside the endemic contexts out of which it arises. This perspective of the fairey-faith--as Wasson observed, is embedded into the very linguistic structure of the Mazatec conceptualization of the mushroom. In preparation for ingestion, I observed shamans lovingly whispering to mushrooms in their hand, using the characteristic reverential diminutive, nti si tho 'the little ones who spring forth,' pequeño niño 'the little children,' pequeño habitantes que vive en el bosques, 'the little inhabitants of the forest.' This linguistic use of reverential diminutive--in reference to the mushroom/elf phenomenon, encompasses a Mazatecan attitude towards mushrooms that is quite beautiful and aesthetic; I also believe this cosmology has a broad history down through time. Much of my own impetus to study these indigenous visionary-plant folk traditions, was in the observation that the bulk of people are very irresponsible and disrespectful in how they approach psychedelics and sacred plants. And while I certainly agree that there CAN be a contextualization effect, I am hesitant to sacrifice the folk traditions, linguistics, arts of native peoples on the bloody altar of patristic-scientistic-fundamentalism simply because the idea of 'elves/fairies' is an uncomfortable one to the scientific paradigm. The time for witch-burnings is over, and I think science has better use than in burning folk-ideologies at the stake. So it is very interesting, I personally feel there is an immense amount of very honest potential in science--I'm versed/studied in science as part of my work, but perhaps it will require a more original and primordial approach to psychospirituality before that depth potential in science is realized.

At times I may be a bit too candid and honest about my own personal experience. Taking a step back from it all, I can see how my story would really come as a bit of a shock. I certainly don't take my particular story so seriously as it may appear, I occasionally reach out to common-minded individuals for feedback on what has been a powerfully transformative life-course. That said, I neither take myself nor these experience as hard-fact; some of the imagery I'm using is basically just playing with imaginative processes on the visionary-archetypal level. The emphasis I place is on the transparency of the theophanic imagination; none of this is concrete or certain, as in that moment we gravitate towards fundamentalism.

The 'contextualization' effect per psychedelics is worthy of comment. I became enamoured with the works of Pablo Amaringo at age 14, and some of it's gravitas may well have been in this 'democratization of epiphany,' that ephiphany and vision was freely available without priestly mediation. When people approach me for guidance per psychedelics--which is happening ALOT these days, I'm quick to point out 'I have no interest in being a teacher, I'm not a shaman, at best I'm a friend with experience who is here to help.' This considered, I have definitely noticed that the visionary content of ayahuasca-experiences seems to span a much broader array of 'themes' than I have encountered in sacred mushrooms. Keep in mind that I am specifically talking about the visionary content, and I feel there is more to psychedelics than simply the visions/hallucinations. My first experience drinking ayahuasca in the Amazon was very centered on snake-type visions, other experiences had distinct dragon or UFO imagery. So when I look at Amaringo's art, while it has a marvelous variety of themes and contexts, on a certain level I very clearly recognize that the art is ayahuasca-themed. That is to say, I'm not entirely sure the broader context of of Amaringo's art faithfully represents the millieu of sacred mushrooms. By comparison, it can be argued that the art of the Huichole is unusually cogent across artists; different artists display a marked cogency of themes within the yarn-art medium. Does this then suggest that peyote-visions look like Huichole art paintings? Can this be extrapolated to other plant-psychedelics? I don't think so ...

My broader suggestion here is that while yes, psychedelics inculcate and evolve a cross-contextual democratization of epiphany, I'm not sure it's good to view it as a 'free-for-all' on absolutely relative terms. I have personally observed many-many people who simply incorporate psychedelics into their psychopathology. In fact, one of the things I very often mention to people is that our culture lacks a necessary-context for using sacred plants in a meaningful way. In my case, I studied the NAC-peyote religion, ayahuasca in the jungle, and mushrooms with the Mazatec, because I felt it necessary and prudent to create a vehicle for deepening and strengthening myself in regards to these plants.

I tend to disagree with the notion that the packaging/container (species/strain) has a discernible influence on the experience of the contents (psilocybin). How different is the experience of synthetic psilocybin to naturally produced alkaloids?

Tryptamine would be rapidly broken down in the liver by MAO. I think the difference is in the amounts of baeocystin. No one to my knowledge has ever done a study on pure baeocystin, but I suspect it is nearly as active as psilocin, but having only one N-methyl group I suspect that its receptor signaling and brain distribution is different from psilocin. We thought about making some when I was at Purdue, but never got around to doing it. The synthesis is a little tricky, but we could have done it.

Hey Elpo,

These secondary metabolites in psilocybin mushrooms remain understudied at the present time. there is an ongoing Czech study that is seeking to quantify levels of psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin and norbaeocystin in different species of mushroom, as even simple potency data is largely out of date.

I asked Prof. David Nichols about why [to me and many others] there seems to be such clear and consistent differences in character or experiential quality between different species of mushroom, and he had this to say regarding baeocystin.



I don't wish to turn you off trying any mushrooms...many people rate P. semilanceata very highly indeed. High quantities of phenylethylamine only seems to be a rare issue, and P. semilanceata have a high psilocybin/psilocin ratio so they retain potency very well long term, even stored at room temperature. So if you have never tried this species, I would definitely say it's worth it. It would be interesting to see more mushroom enthusiasts sample a larger variety of species and coming to their own conclusions.

A decade and a half ago now you could buy fresh mushrooms here in the UK...most commonly Psilocybe cubensis but also Copelandia, or as they are now known, Panaeolus cyanescens. These are often referred to as "Hawaiians" or "blue meanies" and in my experience (shared with numerous others) they induce a much higher order experience than Psilocybe cubensis (anyone sceptical that different species have different qualities should have a few sessions each with the latter two species as the differences between them are particularly marked as mushrooms go).

Panaeolus cyanescens is very much more potent than Psilocybe cubensis...by eating more of them, do you mean actual quantity of mushrooms? They produce much smaller mushrooms, so you may sometimes need to ingest more of them, but gram for gram Panaeolus cyanescens is vastly more potent, most people finding it 2/3x as potent as your average Psilocybe cubensis. I am currently growing the "Hawaiian" strain of Panaeolus cyanescens and am looking forward to getting reacquainted with it.

Thanks for clarifying, just wondering when we say P cyanescens we mean Panaeolus right?
It gets confusing since they were renamed from Copelandia, especially since there is Panaeolus and Psilocybe cyanescens

Now that you mention it..Yes, it was panaeolus, and not psilocybe.

It is a little confusing indeed. But i just checked with google pictures, just to be sure.
And unless google messed-up, i'm 100% sure it was panaeolus.