dissociation vs. transcendence

“Transcendence is conscious dissociation;

dissociation is unconscious transcendence.”

In the essay Full Release, I outline my position on how there is a final threshold that is met and breached that defines what a peak experience with 5 is. What I did not discuss in that text is how the approach to that encounter determines much of the quality of it. The quality of the experience has much to do with the value of what is taken away. This is the topic of this essay.

In his book, The Toad and the Jaguar, the late Ralph Metzner shares about his experimentations with 5. The result of those trials lead him to establish a format (using insufflation as a route of administration) that allowed for a variety of interventions to be made when participants were in sub-threshold states (pre-samadhic, or, not quite full release). His preference for ‘positioning’ participants anywhere prior to the threshold (which would demarcate the full release) seems to be for an aspect of “I” to be present/active. Having or maintaining an element of the conscious self as the ideal way to effectively process repressed material is a widely accepted belief in trauma-informed frameworks. I don’t hold that view in its entirety but I believe Metzner’s approach was congruent with his beliefs and teachings.

 

“Rather than a dissociated out-of-body trance state […], [pre-full release states are] absorptive trance states where awareness remains in the body but is simultaneously expanded into extra-dimensional and infra-somatic realms, and with full memory on returning. We have found also that having and holding the intention to remember the experience enhances the re-membering, thereby connecting the deeper realizations with everyday consciousness.”

With the Metzner methodology (and I daresay lineage), subjective experiencing is intended to remain intact. This means that it is preferred that the self is present enough to be able to have an experience, even if it’s self-experiencing. If I overlie his methodology onto Bentinho Massaro’s diagram (expanded on in Full Release), Metzner’s preferred sub-threshold zone is the same as Massaro’s depiction of a continuum of stages of the association between subject and object: from “subject-objects” (on the right-hand side) to “pure subject-no object” (towards the left-hand side). Only when a (supposedly final) threshold is crossed is there a full break of association between subject and object, since there results the complete absence of subjective experience (no subject).

In other words, crossing that line (the vertical line furthest to the left) from right to left on the Massaro diagram was what Metzner seemed to try to avoid. Left of that line is what Metzner refers to as “a dissociated out-of-body state” or “a transcendent, out-of-body or absorptive trance state that can be only partially remembered and described afterwards.” In terms of positioning the participant, that line experientially corresponds to a complete (psychological) dissociation. And if that line were a dose of 5 (such as 15mg), it would represent the dissociative dose (DD-50).

That’s a lot of variations of the same word! So let’s look a little closer:

Dissociation (dictionary)
1 the action of disconnecting or separating or the state of being disconnected
(psychiatry) separation of some aspects of mental functioning from conscious awareness, leading to a degree of mental dysfunction or to mental conditions including dissociative identity disorder

Psychological dissociation (Metzner)
Unconsciousness of one’s own bodily postures and gestures, vocalizations and verbalizations, as well as more or less total disconnect of awareness of one’s surroundings

Dissociative dose (DD) – 50 (Metzner)
The dosage at which about half the subjects, or half the experiences, involve some degree of dissociation

In the context of 5, the fullest degree of dissociation is a full release. Metzner refers to this as psychological dissociation: a complete separation from all sense of self (subject) and all objects of experience. In another word, unconsciousness.

unconscious (dictionary)
[adjective]
1 not awake and aware of and responding to one’s environment
2 done or existing without one realising
(unconscious of) unaware of

[noun] the unconscious
the part of the mind which is inaccessible to the conscious mind but which affects behaviour and emotions: horrific apparitions surfaced out of the recesses of his unconscious.

 

For the purpose of this essay, when speaking of dissociation, I am not referring to the above psychiatric definition (separation of some aspects of mental functioning from conscious awareness). This is not to dismiss nor exclude the acknowledgement of a continuum of parts or divisions of personality that relate to trauma. Parts and other theories of structural dissociation in the personality are elaborated well elsewhere. For example, Bianca Sebben:

“Dissociation can be like a defense against realisation: an inability to grasp aspects of the external experience, and where there is profound non-realisation (phobia of internal experience), different avoided aspects of the trauma are held in various dissociative parts that have their own corresponding physiology—different somatic precursors such as sensations, gestures, and movements.”

Distinctions to be realised

“Transcendence is conscious dissociation;

dissociation is unconscious transcendence.”

In the dense phrase above is a very nuanced distinction between what it means to transcend and what it means to dissociate. The two actions are clearly similar and the variable is the state of consciousness. It’s the approach to unconsciousness I will unpack here, overlaying the frameworks of subject-object as well as surrender-submission relationships.

White-out or blackout experiences precede a temporary loss of consciousness. It is easy to judge a loss of consciousness as undesirable, especially if it is believed that the only way to heal is when the sense of self is aware of what is happening. However, the quality of how one experiences unconsciousness (a full release of the subject from its association with object) is important to consider as one may consent to that. Consenting to a full release is what leads to what may be deemed as transcendent. Not consenting to a full release is what leads to what may be deemed as dissociation.

In the essay With Surrender in Mind, the surrender-submission binary is explored at length. These two words are very similar and their meaning may vary from person to person.

I use the word submission to indicate a subject giving way to an overwhelming force/factor. To overwhelm is to render the subject incapable of conscious choice as well as effective resistance. Unconscious resistance is a mechanism of patterning, usually a strategic protective response such as: typical fight-flight-freeze-fawn actions, sabotage or other strategies to divert attention. These are unconscious means to dissociate . Furthermore, even if the subject is overwhelmed, it’s not wholly related to the quantity of the force. The subject may be overwhelmed because individual factors affect the intensity of the experience.

A submission experience with 5 is when the dose provides leverage for the nervous system to open but is unnecessarily excessive, resulting in a forcing. What is excessive is unique to that individual.

 I use the word surrender to indicate a subject giving way to a seemingly external element (object) that does not overwhelm. Surrender indicates either a choice or a capacity to not be overwhelmed but rather to give way to the external element consciously. Even if there is an acknowledgement of a potentially overwhelming force, surrender demonstrates a degree of agency.

A surrender experience with 5 is when the dose provides leverage for the nervous system to open as well as allows for the individual’s nervous system to stay open. The adequate leverage for a full release is unique to that individual.

 This means that the DD (dissociative dose) is not a stable factor. The point/line at which transcendence or dissociation occurs is different for each person and often different each time.

Returning to the focal sentence then:

 

“Transcendence is conscious dissociation” relates to surrender.

“Dissociation is unconscious transcendence” relates to submission.

After having taken the time to explore what is meant by dissociation in this context, what is transcendence then?

Transcendence (noun)
existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level

Transcend (verb)
be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere)

Transcendent (adjective)
beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience
(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

The absolute transcendent experience is also, just like dissociation, the complete separation (dissolution?) of subject from object (unconsciousness). However, it happens by way of the subject’s capacity to surrender to that “limitation”. The material universe, in the above definition of transcendent, is, in my view, the “realm” of objects of experience. Anything that can be experienced is object in relation to subject (which is the experiencer). And if the experiencer consciously lets go of experience, it is to transcend experience. In other words, complete transcendence isn’t actually an experience. Therefore, it can’t actually be remembered, since there was nothing to be aware of. With no subject to experience anything, there is no remembering.

Ritualised surrender: a medicinal pathway to unconsciousness

Metzner et al believe that arriving at a state of unconsciousness (complete psychological dissociation) is a disadvantageous route for healing. Positioning individual consciousness left of that line is not widely seen to be conducive to processing “…the deeper realizations with everyday consciousness.” I certainly agree with this if the pathway to unconsciousness has been dissociation. I don’t agree with this if the pathway to unconsciousness has been transcendent.

I argue here that not only is there nothing inherently wrong with arriving at unconsciousness, there is something extraordinarily beneficial with it. The pathway for that to be beneficial is for it to be arrived at through transcendence. This approach is made possible by a surrender to rather than a submission to. From a white-out or a blackout and every experience in between, the opportunity for a well-orchestrated “out” is a large part of what makes 5 atypical amongst psychedelics and a reliable ally on the direct path.

The surrender that allows an individual (subject) to transcend the confines (object) which define them. The release that fully liberates the primordial awareness (no subject) that has funnelled into manifestations of a sense of self (pure subject), and individuated shapes and forms (subject-objects) in order to experience something. The ritual of a safe, secure, solid, and sacred container that aims not to overwhelm but invites the individual to consciously say YES to going out their own mind—fully, completely.

Through ritualised surrender, the state (unconsciousness) that is like nothing I can imagine (because “I” is not there) is a salve. In the words of Jason Silva:

“…many people are afflicted with a pathological amount of anxiety and depression. It’s what Jamie Wheal calls “21st century normal”: this fibrillating anxious state from an overactive ego stemming from a misfiring default mode network which is the autobiographical mind which is essentially metastasized into something that is a kind of autoimmune disorder of the self and the excessive rumination and self-consciousness that characterizes depression and anxiety both come from a mind that has become too ordered, too rigid, too hyper-vigilant.

It’s like we’re all living with a perpetual micro-PTSD. And what the research tells us […] is that in safe containers and with the proper precautions deployed, the experience of ecstatic surrender, the experience of ego death—what Jamie Wheal calls the Bliss-fuck crucifixion— is actually where all the healing is done.”

It’s possible that healing with 5 is to transcend the limitations of being human.


Being is out of control, if we let it.

you may
also want
to read…

full release

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences,...

read more
©2024 chadcharles.net

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences, but rather inspirations, ecstasies, and raptures. It is thought that probably the majority of peak experiences fall into this category. Absolute peak experiences are characteristic of mystical experiences, and are comparable to experiences of great mystics in history. They are timeless, spaceless, and characterised by unity, in which the subject and object becomes one.”
Alan G. Hefner

Coined around 2009 by the Temple of Awakening Divinity, a “full release” is a term that refers to the potential peak experience with 5. Here in this text, I aim to unpack that term. Many—practitioners and participants alike—have difficulty understanding it, and rightfully so! “A release of what?”, one might ask. “How full is full?“, asks another. All this—and more—is at the heart of the matter in the following paragraphs, sprinkled with quotes and definitions along the way, consistent with my writing style.

The term full release seems to be used often as a description of the experience itself, even though it’s not clear as to what it refers to. I think of the term as describing a mechanism or a mode of action; a release is an action and the full refers to the quality or range of that action. If it is indeed a mechanism/mode of action, then the term aims to describe how a peak experience with 5 happens. If one accepts the true notion of mystery and what is ineffable, the peak experience itself can’t actually be described. So describing the how it happens or the what of the release is where I’ll begin.

First, a definition of the word:

Release
1 allow or enable to escape from confinement; set free
2 allow (something) to move, act, or flow freely
remove restrictions or obligations from (someone or something) so that they become available for other activity
remove from a fixed position, allowing something else to move or function
allow (something) to return to its resting position by ceasing to put pressure on it
3 allow (information) to be generally available

 

As a lens onto the 5 experience, I’m going to use definitions 1 and 2. The release, in my view, has to do with the ego structure. This Freudian term mostly refers to the cognitive functions that navigate awareness of both internal and external perceptions/realities. There is something (subject) that is aware of thoughts, feelings, and sensations, as well as external stimuli (objects). This something then assesses, evaluates, and responds to those phenomena. Obviously I’m not going to expand too much on the tremendous complexity here—the grand theorists have gifted us so much already—but basically the ego structure somewhat encompasses or describes the building blocks of self-identification or a sense of self.

What is being released? Or, what is something being released from or of? Is it the ego structure itself that is being released? Or is it that which the structure houses/hosts? If one could describe what the structure is made up of, it could be surmised if that material could be released. Or, if it is found that the structure is housing something, it could be noted that that something is what is released from the structure. Let’s take the time to consider each of these two possibilities.

Consideration 1: The ego structure (itself)
If it is the ego structure itself that is being released, then, following the definitions above, it suggests that it is the structure that has been confined or held in a fixed position by yet something else. If I were to use Freudian terms again, it would perhaps be the superego that confines the ego via the former’s restrictions and obligations (let’s say, in part, internalised societal norms and moral values). Following this reasoning, releasing the ego structure would require the removal of the superego (or whatever encompasses it).

If a structure is being built, the building is made up of material, the bricks and mortar (what the material is made up is discussed elsewhere). For the construction of that building, often scaffolding is required (the foundation will be discussed elsewhere). In the above view, the building is the ego structure and the scaffolding is (at least in part) the superego. When the scaffolding is removed, the building stands on its own. But when the building is removed, then what is left? That is the subject on its own.

Consideration 2: Subject matter
If it is what the ego structure houses (subject) that is being released, this suggests that it is the structure that is the confinement from which the subject escapes. In this view, it is the subject that is set free, returned, or able to move and flow freely. Following this reasoning, releasing the subject would require the removal of the ego structure.

Using the analogy of a building again: the building gives shape to what was intangible. Prior to the building, there was nothing. Just air or space. Inside the building, there is still air. However, the space has been compartmentalized; there are rooms, ducts, stairwells, elevator shafts, etc. With the structure that was constructed, what was once nonphysical is given a form. It is that form that we see/identify and can be given a name: a building, a construct. Take away the construct (object), and there is left open space (subject) which was always there.

Taking into account these two considerations above, I tend to think that the latter is the most likely scenario. In that consideration, it’s not the ego structure that is released from what confines it, it is the ego structure that confines what is ultimately to be released. Certainly, the ego structure can be released from its confines. When that happens, this is where the stage of consciousness goes from subject-objects to subject-object to pure subject-no object. The releasing occurs in stages or intervals. This indicates a continuum of sorts. Along this continuum the subject is incrementally denuded of its association with object(s) until, perhaps finally, the subject is even divested of itself. According to the Temple of Awakening Divinity (T.O.A.D.), where the term originated, a full release refers to “a complete ‘ego dissolution’ experience.” Whether or not the action of the release is experienced as a dissolution would be material for another text. For our purposes here, the short definition of the full release (by the T.O.A.D.) is that the dissolution is complete.
Which brings us to examine a synonym of complete, the other word in the term:

Full
1 containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space
2 [attributive] not lacking or omitting anything; complete

 

Even in the literal definition above, parts of my mind sneakily try to find a way to escape the absolutist words such as no empty space and complete. Does no really or always mean none? Does complete mean 100%? Who wrote that definition anyway? There’s a part of mind that wants to find some wiggle room: “it can’t be so absolute, so delineated, can it?” And yet, when I turn to the felt-memory of my peak experiences of 5-MeO-DMT, it seems to be just that: absolute. If the subject has been fully released from its association with object, it’s not relative anymore. There would be nothing for it to be relative to.

Semantics, right? Effing the ineffable is difficult to do! I find that the space between my felt-experience and the words I could use to describe that felt-experience is mediated well with metaphors and analogies. Here’s one:

Soaking in the fullness

Imagine an immersion in water. If I walk into a river and stand there with the water up to my waste, I might say that I’m wet. That’s true; I feel wetness. But, I’m not completely wet. In fact, I’m half dry. If I go a little further, maybe up to my neck, I’m certainly more wet; most of my body is in the water, under the surface. However, only if all of my body is completely under the surface can I say that I am immersed in the water. Once below the surface—the demarcation between air and water—I am completely wet. Saturated. There is no part of me that is not in the water. I am completely—fully—submerged in the other element. Prior to the immersion, I was partly wet; once immersed, I am completely wet. There is a point at which the transition from being dry to being wet is total.

So, where were we? What is the point? What’s my position?

Circles, waves, lines, and points: super-positioning the self

Horizon
1 the line at which the Earth’s surface and the sky appear to meet
2 the limit of a person’s knowledge, experience, or interest

Threshold
2 the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to occur or be manifested:
the maximum level of radiation or a concentration of a substance considered to be acceptable or safe

I have come to recognise a full release by acknowledging a threshold or a horizon. A horizon is a line beyond which, at the moment of seeing/approaching it, there is not perception nor direct experience. In other words, before that line there is direct experience. The experiencer (subject) has awareness of experience (object)—even if it’s an experience of itself without any object. Beyond that line is the unknown. Once the horizon is transcended, what was once unknown becomes known. Knowing, in this sense, is some sort of felt-sense, since the knower has to be extinguished in order for the final horizon—the last veil—to be breached. That final horizon, in the diagram below, is the vertical line on the left-hand side that separates what is described as I-I and Beyond-I

In the diagram (created by Bentinho Massaro), there are vertical lines that delineate the changes in subject-object relationships. There are also other lines that form circles and waves. While looking at it, if you allow your attention to flow from left to right, it can be seen that what is unconfined and infinite becomes channeled/funnelled into more and more defined shapes until finally closed circles. If our attention goes from right to left, it can be seen that what was once encircled and defined becomes open and exposed/free. The lines represent horizons.

If the diagram is looked at through the lens of an experience with 5, I can see it as a cartography of the flow of identity consciousness. The sense of self in the circles on the right breaches horizons leftward through a continuum of transformations made possible by a release. If you trace a finger from the human figure towards the torus or the word “infinity”, the pathway encounters those lines. Each line that your finger encounters needs to be crossed in order to advance. The lines are horizons that need to be surpassed, transcended, penetrated in order to advance. At the same time, those lines need to break, give way, dissolve, or somehow be removed in order for what was inside to be released.

So, along the way, from right to left, there are releases. And the path unfolds until there is a final threshold. In the diagram, the final threshold is the vertical line that delineates the path (on the right side of it) where the subject is present, and the sheer openness (on the left side of it) where the subject is no longer present (more on the torus in another post). Left of that line: beyond I, the One, the Absolute, Infinity, the beyondness, the foreverness, where there is no subject—which is beyond experiencing. Right of that line, a once-confined Beingness has been released from all the lines that represent limitations and frontiers. The release is full. No line or circle can limit or hold, in a fixed position, the subject.

No object.
No s/Self.
No experiencing.

Each line that is transcended is a release of what was in that very first circle.
Each line that dissolves releases that which it once defined.

Unpacking the range of experiences possible throughout the continuum of release is a task that is much more than this short text can tackle. However, I feel it important to at least highlight the release that brings the subjective position into the timeless, self-experiencing zone on the diagram. Seen here—the I-I relationship—the release of the subject from its association with object is indeed complete; the circle is opened up and all foundation (substratum) becomes absent. The experience of the Unmanifest Self (which is pure awareness) is noteworthy because this is, in my opinion, the report of feeling at one with All. At this position, “I” only experiences “I”. And “I” is All that which “preceded” it, including creation and that which is manifested in collaboration (debatable) with the experiencer. The release required to find oneSelf in the zone of Awareness is an important one. However, since there is yet another threshold (entering into the infinite and toroidal Beyond-I), it is not full.

There are releases along the way; the ego dissolves to various extents. All of these events are valuable and (relatively) mystical and they can all be experienced with 5. Yet the peak experience available with 5 is identifiable by the absence of anything to identify—including oneSelf. If, with an experience with 5, there is an object of experience identified (a thought, an emotion, a sensation, or even a perception), this is either pre- or post- full release (a peri-samadhic state).

My opinion may be considered absolute in some circles but, at some point, one has to draw the full line.

you may
also want
to read…

full release

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences,...

read more
©2024 chadcharles.net

interventions: interference or assistance?

To talk about interventions, we must come to an understanding of what it means to intervene in general before we progress to talking about interventions in the specific context of 5. Five facilitation, as with many modalities that induce or provoke expanded states of consciousness, can be seen through the lens, or on a spectrum, of interventionism; one pole being interventionist, the other being non-interventionist (think “neutral container”).

First, some definitions:

Intervene (verb)
1 come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events
2 extend or occur between events

Intervention (noun)
1 interference by a country in another’s affairs
2 action taken to improve a situation, especially a medical disorder

Interfere (verb)
1 take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity
2 (interfere with) prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly
3 (interfere with) handle or adjust (something) without permission, especially so as to cause damage

Interference (noun)
1 the action of interfering or the process of being interfered with
2 from physics: the combination of two or more electromagnetic waveforms to form a resultant wave in which the displacement is either reinforced or canceled

Looking at the above definitions, interference and intervention both have aspects (perhaps most with the former) that suggest something may happen non-consensually. Building off of the definitions of the words, I consider the contexts and orientations in which we may use them. For example, a therapeutic intervention is an action taken by a therapist that is a part of the methodology of that therapist’s approach. A clinical intervention is a part of the clinician’s approach. A shamanic intervention may look very different, since the context is very different. Within a shamanic orientation, as within a therapeutic one, there are wildly different variations; perhaps less than within a clinical one. In any case, there are identifiable actions that a practitioner with a specific orientation use with their participants.

To be 5-specific, this text will explore considerations for interventions through the lens of different “stages” of the 5 “space”. To do so, I will use terminology that I establish in another piece that speaks of samadhi and other stages that are not samadhi but lead to or are arrived at from it. Even though I allude to specific interventions, rather than focus on the orientation of a practitioner (I.e., shamanic, therapeutic, psychonautic, clinical, ceremonial, etc.), I am focussing mostly on two stages (samadhi and peri-samadhi), and the appropriateness of interventions in either.

I am also offering here both a critique of certain practices as well as components of apprenticeship. The text will be more of interest to practitioners (established or noviciate), providers (as Martin Ball would put it), aspiring clinicians—and less so for psychonauts and prospective or practised participants. As I reveal my opinions here, I realise that I risk offending some of the former. I do so emboldened by a small amount of experience in the field. I also do this so as to engage my peers and colleagues by offering another voice to our vocation.

Samadhi and peri-samadhi: a plurality of stages

“Spirit is not an object; it is radical, ever-present Subject, and thus it is not something that is going to jump out in front of you like a rock, an image, an idea, a light, a feeling, an insight, a luminous cloud, an intense vision, or a sensation of great bliss. Those are all nice, but they are all objects, which is what Spirit is not.”
– Ken Wilber

Samadhic interventions are real-time engagements with divinely arising presentations (what I term the psycho-cosmic penetralia) from the broadest recesses of memory, as explored, for example, in Death. Just as when the life force can be felt under your finger tips when filleting a de-headed fish or that breathing continues when someone is in a coma, there is life force in the body when the sense of self is fully dissolved or, at least, not actively, functionally present. That life force engages memories; those memories, I argue, can be worked with—though they don’t need to be.

I don’t mean to suggest that a practitioner should be an interventionist. I support non-interventionist approaches as well and would consider my practice to lean generously on the non-interventionist end of the spectrum. What I see as pioneering, though, is the potential for successful resolution of incomplete experiences that can arise in the fully dissolved state. Furthermore, I prefer to see this pioneering work engaged with in a collegial environment.

Numerous methods may assist in the successful completion or resolution of the presentations in this stage: trauma-informed frameworks that are body-centred (proprioceptive, sensori-motor, etc.), mind-centred (psycho-drama, parts theory, etc.), energetic (psychic surgeries, sound, cosmic contact improvisation, etc.). Again, the application of established methods as well as novel ones to the transpiring penetralia is innovatory. A well-rounded practitioner brings to their private practice many tools that, in sum, amount to the scope of their practice.

Peri-samadhic interventions (in the context of 5 facilitation) may resemble those used with other substance-induced states, whether they be shamanic, clinical, and so on. However, I only consider them beneficial if they support the lens of the design of 5: the samadhi state/stage/point/event (beyond “I”) is likely its raison d’être (or its pièce de résistance, whichever you prefer). How one arrives at or dissolves into that state is a question of approach, a narrow spectrum I have introduced as having two main qualities, surrender and submission. The interventions used pre- and post- samadhi state will largely be congruent with where the practitioner is on that spectrum (or incongruent with where they think they are). The interventions will probably also be reflective of the practitioner’s orientation (psychotherapeutic, energetic, neo-shamanic, elemental, clinical, etc.).

Part of what indicates a peri-samadhic state is that there is a sense of self. “I” is present to some degree, whether it be in the I-I, I-AM, or I-AM-THIS phase. Because there is a self-experiencing aspect to these phases (pre- or post- samadhi), the practitioner offering an intervention will need to ascertain that the participant is indeed participating. I say participate even though the presence of an “I” has a very broad range since it is composed of many categories of memory, not to mention a range that includes passive observation and actively making choices. A simple but imprecise determinant may be: is “I” having an experience?

Pathways to apprenticeship

“Initiation met poorly can be trauma. Trauma met well can be initiation.”
– Sarah Kerr

I consider interventions in the samadhi stage to be advanced and pioneering work when approached diligently, humbly, and in a guidance relationship (as defined by the Conclave). In my opinion, interventions in this stage are not pioneering or advancing anything in a collaborative manner if they are prescriptive, peremptory, templated, appropriations, or left unscrutinised. The samadhi stage is a precious, delicate state. The participant is perhaps at their most impressionable; the psyche completely exposed. Interventions here shouldn’t be used lightly or cavalierly. This is not to say that interventions by noviciates are ill-disposed. It is to say that they may be ill-suited.

When interventions here resemble those that would be common in peri-samadhic states (such as with most other substances) there may be a sort of “copycatism.” The application of interventions that were birthed within other substance work traditions, particularly of those encased in traditions and lineages (ayahuasca, peyote, mushrooms, iboga, etc.) is a poor substitute for learning about what is actually happening while there is a samadhi state—not to mention a process of continual colonisation. Applying interventions this way reveals a lack of a fuller understanding of the 5 as well as a lack of the will to let go of what we think we know. This is reflective of: a false sense of competency on the part of the practitioner; a sense that one has some sort of precocious talent or super power that comes from divine authority; or simply arrogance.

Furthermore, it is extremely difficult for anyone to act without a degree of projection. If there is an impulse for a practitioner to act/intervene at the samadhi stage, their genius aside, there is a strong element of that impulse being an egoic/personal one. A simple message to noviciates: when in doubt, lean towards refraining from offering an intervention. Then, find peers and/or mentors with whom you can shadow. This way, a trusted peer (one that can support and scrutinise you) can offer feedback around your decisions to act.

Supervision is one of the most valuable stages of a guidance relationship, and ought to be sought out. Avoiding aspects of a guidance relationship (such as shadowing, supervision, case study, and experiential giving/receiving) is to avoid gaining know-how through the vulnerability of being seen by a peer, mentor, trainer, or master-practitioner. Care-full and supportive scrutiny from peers and/or mentors advances one’s practice toward excellence much faster than “re-inventing the wheel”—often a characteristic quality of the self-approved autodidact, lone wolf, and charlatan.

Shadowing is equally valuable and, ideally, would come before supervision. To simply be a fly on the wall within a mentor’s “container” exposes a learner to a lot of information. This can then be absorbed in post-session debriefing. Here the shadower can simply take in the information without having to be involved in decision-making processes. The peer or mentor can then respond to questions regarding the decisions that were made. This is as close to explaining the nexus of intuitive and rational process as can be. It is also an opportunity for the mentor to be vulnerable, as the mentee or apprentice has the capacity to reveal blind spots. Thus, everyone is our teacher and we can all continue to be students.

Spectrum of intervention

The spectrum of intervention styles or methods is broad. Often, the interventionist pole is marked with blatant interference. Contrasted with that, the non-interventionist pole can lack in “benefit optimisation.” Somewhere in this range, a practitioner will find themselves operating. If the practitioner is allowing it to evolve, their position on the spectrum will probably move throughout the duration of their practice. It won’t move much if the practitioner is encased in or committed to a particular or inflexible way, teaching, custom, or tradition. That there isn’t a universally practised way with 5 suggests that there is a high likelihood one will see signs of continual colonisation (a system of oppression) in an offering, such as appropriation and capitalisation—often a characteristic or unchecked quality of the neo-shaman.

On that note, where a practitioner finds themselves on this spectrum will also vary according to their orientation, such as shamanic, therapeutic, clinical, psychospiritual, ceremonial, etc. For instance, a shamanic approach may use interventions constantly and automatically, whereas a clinical approach may use none if they are not requested by the participant. The question of orientation, then, intersects with the question “Who is this for?” In other words, consent and interventions are inextricably linked.

Consent

Assist (verb)
1 help (someone), typically by doing a share of the work
2 help by providing information
– [no object ] be present as a helper or spectator

Assist (noun) mainly North American
1 an act of helping

Although I have used the word “intervention” here, I quite like the word “assist.” This word, for me, more squarely/adequately answers the question “who is this for?” with “the participant” being the response. As noted above, an intervention may be offered without the consent of the participant. This then opens the door to the possibility that the practitioner is not helping the participant, but perhaps helping themselves. Helping themselves to what? If there is a protocol that is being followed, such as within a shamanic tradition or a clinical framework, it is possible that the prescribed action taken is more about procedure rather than being completely attuned to the immediacy of the participants’ experience.

Perhaps this is why the Conclave’s Best Practices are a very broad and often non-specific set of guidelines: an expansive array of possible orientations and interventions may fall under the guise of what is considered good practice—if indeed many of the considerations in this text are contemplated and integrated. It is not a manual after all, but a broad pathway to integrity.

What’s Presenting?

Presentation (noun)
1 the giving of something to someone, especially as part of a formal ceremony
the manner or style in which something is given, offered, or displayed

Now, returning to the specific nature of the potential peak experience of 5, samadhi. When there are presentations in the samadhi stage (remember, the “life force” or “cosmic penetralia” that can be perceived despite there not being an “I” present), the practitioner doesn’t necessarily know “who” or “what” is presenting. The question “who is this for?” then becomes quite tricky. It would be a facile assumption to automatically determine that the life force that is activating the body and many of its faculties and motor functions is indeed conducted by the person(a) that ingested the substance. To be direct: if the “beyond-I” phase is arrived at, that “person” is most likely not directing a presentation (if there is one).

Persona (noun)
1 the outer or assumed aspect of character

If the “I” who imbibed is not present, but there is a presentation of some other persona or penetralia, how can we ask for consent? Any prior consent would be either moot or inapplicable—unless a “carte blanche” had been given to the practitioner. The non-interventionist practitioner would insist on doing nothing no matter what was happening (with the exception of keeping the body safe), thereby avoiding possible interference, yet foregoing offering an assist. The interventionist practitioner would not hesitate to offer an assist according to whatever they thought was appropriate.

What should a practitioner absolutely not do when someone is in a full-release [samadhi] state?

In other words, what is malpractice in regards to interventions? The strict answer is that the practitioner should not be assisting/intervening in any way that was not consented to prior. The exception to this would be the full discretionary power (carte blanche) given by the participant.

The loose answer is that intuitive responses to unpredictable presentations (remember, psycho-cosmic penetralia) may not have been consented to, yet there may be a magic component to how the genius of the practitioner manifests. The “genius” is the intuitive yet informed response to uncertain and/or volatile presentations. Informed by what? A combination of practical competency and a developed intuitive sense that serve immediate needs and potentials.

Practice makes perfect, so it is said. To deny genius—an exceptional yet innate creative power or natural ability—is not the suggestion here. To practise and develop genius is to be response-able with the participant. That practicing and development is probably best done, initially or even continually, with supervision or co-witnessing of some kind.

Best practice would see that the practitioner outlines the range of possible assists that they may use for the participant to consent to—especially those that would be deemed necessary to keep the body safe. The scope of the practitioner’s practice is implicitly revealed here. Even if the carte blanche is given, the practitioner can indicate what may occur and even what is not to occur.

Conclusion

There are many considerations and factors that determine intervention styles. Metaphysical sentiments, the vocational orientation, the degree of apprenticeship, the functional skillset, and consent all intersect to result in identifying how and why a practitioner would “come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events”. This nexus of factors alone could apply to any trade of the healing arts. However, seeing this intersection through the lens of the peak experience with 5 makes this body of work unique. The uniqueness merits special attention and ought to result in a niche expertise.

Proficiency in these matters is a part of what turns best practices into excellent practices. Excellent practice, in my opinion, is, in part, to empower the participant as much as possible. Developing excellence takes time, no matter the knack or personal will that a practitioner possesses. May all practitioners aspire to excellence and may excellence not be an end point but an ongoing process.

Let’s keep it simple: there is an essential quality to being human and working as a guide. The guide is also human. The guide is consciousness in human form, just like the participant. Both guide and participant are manifested godheads of quintessence. We are all finding our way. What is personal or ego-derived is also divine. Let’s not forget that. Let’s not forget that the potential for great integrity comes often through learning through degrees of our messy, human selves.

We may all be a divine intervention. So may we find grace in the movement of the genius into form. May this form be as in-formed as possible. We seem to be constant(ly) in-formation, anyway.

you may
also want
to read…

full release

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences,...

read more
©2022 chadcharles.net

a therapeutic window

“vyutthāna—the several-minutes-long process of coming out of deep meditation, of moving from fully introversive awareness to the extroversive state. It is in this vyutthāna phase that we have a golden opportunity to integrate the former with the latter. Kṣema teaches us that the way we transition out of deep meditation (samādhi) is just as important as the meditation itself.”

– Christopher Wallis on the Recognition Sutras

A Window Into A Therapeutic Methodology

In the following paragraphs I partially outline two stages of my practice, initiation (the Conclave‘s word for setting) and integration, which conjoin rather seamlessly. I”ll begin by sharing first about a theoretical underpinning to my approach to initiation. I’ll then follow by touching on how I put theory into practise via interventions. I end the chapter by describing the ways in which my clients are supported beyond the initiation and throughout until the following one. I wish to thank all the peers, colleagues, mentors, and teachers who have continually provided me with the reflections I’ve used to stay humble and sincere, as well as open, curious, and bold.

 

A core element of my methodology mirrors the wisdom-teaching of Rajanaka Kshemaraja, a nondual Shaiva Tantrik who wrote, in Sanskrit, the Recognition Sutras around 1000 years ago. When I say the methodology mirrors the teachings, I mean conceptually as well as practically. The conceptual and philosophical framework of the Recognition philosophy mirrors my own cosmovision and, by extension, my own understanding of what is happening with 5 (at least at the time of writing). Practically, the predominant way that I engage participants in my sessions is a sort of modern take on Sutra 19. In this Sutra, the observation of a unique moment is introduced. The word for that moment is vyutthana and it refers to a short period of time directly after a samadhi experience.

 

Words
To explicate vyutthana and how I consider it to be a core part of my private practice, I will rely exclusively on the translation of the Recognition Sutras by Christopher Wallis. For consistency throughout the text, I will use the numeral “5” to refer to 5-MeO-DMT (as an isolated molecule) as well as the secretion of the Sonoran Desert toad. My own rationale for this can be explored in other texts. I will also use the word “participant” to refer to those who receive what it is that I offer.

I am relying heavily on his one Sanskrit word samadhi to embark on a sharing of my process here, so I will simply use the word samadhi to reflect what I believe to be other words nearly synonymous with nondual, pure consciousness, zero-point field, satori, great spirit, the All, the Holy Kingdom, etc. (this list is by no means exhaustive). My own articulations and thoughts on what a nondual or full-release state is considered in other texts and media.

I don’t pretend to be a Sanskrit scholar whatsoever. However, it is important to note here that the word samadhi is defined in many different ways. It seems to me that for Westerners, the more common definitions and understandings of samadhic states and stages come from well before the Recognition Sutras were written, such as in the Vedic texts, including the Yoga Sutras. Since there is an entire field of study and philosophy around this experience, I won’t be discussing it here. Rather, I will simply say that the definitions of samadhi in the Recognition Sutras resonate with me more than other definitions.

I will begin by commenting on the citations from Wallis’ book.

Sutra 19 of the Recognition Sutras

“When emerging slowly from deep meditation, while still feeling its effect, contemplate the Oneness of whatever is perceived with awareness: practising this again and again, one will attain samadhi that continuously arises.”

Wallis’s interpretation of the above translation:
“vyutthāna—the several-minutes-long process of coming out of deep meditation, of moving from fully introversive awareness to the extroversive state. It is in this vyutthāna phase that we have a golden opportunity to integrate the former with the latter. Kṣema teaches us that the way we transition out of deep meditation (samādhi) is just as important as the meditation itself.

The practice described here is simple: if in the meditation you abide in your true centre even only for a few moments, then, when coming out of meditation and opening the senses to the external world, let yourself perceive whatever you perceive as a direct expression of the fundamental awareness of the center. Everything you experience, without exception, is a direct expression of the simple, sweet, quietly alive sense of being at the center. But you don’t necessarily realise this automatically[…].”

Wallis uses the English word “meditation” to replace the Sanskrit “samadhi.” Since the fully transcendent state with 5 is “even only for a few moments” (if it is “arrived” at at all), it is not long after ingesting 5 that the “extroversive state” is gradually entered into. This is where the various aspects of the sense of self begin to amalgamate into a cohesive unit again. As the self reconfigures (bringing on self-consciousness), it doesn’t “necessarily realise this automatically.”

Wallis continues:
“The moments of vyutthāna—the liminal space between samadhi and the state of being actively engaged with the world—are the golden opportunity to integrate whatever arises in the sphere of perception into the ever expanding sense of ‘I’-ness until it becomes totally all-inclusive. Then your samadhi becomes continuous, for the word samadhi really means ‘intimate union with’; in the first instance, intimate union with the Center, and in the second, through the practice given here, intimate union with the totality of reality.

In this case, the samskara of the samadhi state is what allows for the practice of integrating all that is perceived with the fundamental awareness of that state. It is precisely when you are bathing in ‘the afterglow of the sweet taste of deep meditation’ (the samskara […]) that you have the natural ability to see the mass of existent things, beings, feelings, and mental states dissolving […].”

Integrating “whatever arises in the sphere of perception” is what I call the real-time integration of the specific mental, emotional, and physical phenomena that can be observed in this “liminal space.” Presencing these phenomena (what may be called the samskaric material and other energetic imprints), can be the continuation of what the “fundamental awareness of that [transcendental] state” has revealed. I consider this material as an accretion of clues, signs, or traces that have been revealed. They have been revealed by having had all the self-identifying functions dissolve. The revelation, then, is pure and unfailing. The “medicine” has done its job. It’s a realisation.

 

From initiation to integration and beyond
In my private practice, I take it to be my role to help the participant realise what has been revealed (with “real eyes” of course). To do this, I use “presencing” techniques of various sorts in the “several minutes long process” after a participant has sufficiently regained enough mindfulness to be able to be guided (often verbal, sometimes physically). The guidance is simply taking stock of what has arisen at this time. Specific thoughts, emotions, and sensations are evident and yet, naturally, the actively reconfiguring, reconstituting mind is often not attending to these phenomena.

Sometimes, immediately after the extroversive state has begun, there is either a fixation with the awe of what happened, or more likely, the scrambling to determine what has just occurred. This can obscure or divert attention from what is happening in that “now.” Without being too directive, my process can “capture the rapture” for future processing. There is, admittedly, a risk to be prematurely analytical or unnecessarily “heady.” However, the aim is to bring a slight degree of mindfulness to the divine phenomena. I consider it divine because the participant is experiencing specific things that have come directly out of the dissolved state, from Source. Engaging with that material begins the practice of integration for the participant.

 

mindful
1 conscious or aware of something
2 focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, especially as part of a therapeutic or meditative technique

 

At the time of writing, there is much emphasis in popular, mainstream dialogue on being “present” and being “mindful.” For many born into and growing up in an increasingly stimulated environment, it almost goes without saying that paying attention to what is “at hand” is a good thing. Generally we are more “grounded,” clear-headed, and functional when we are attentive to what is immediate—both spatially and temporally.

To use Wallis’ words in his definition of vyutthana, mindfulness is akin to the extroversive state. This is when personal consciousness is present or active enough to be aware of and observe what is happening in the moment. For example, current thoughts (observations as well as narration), emotions (whether core or peripheral; observational or instinctive), sensations (including proprioception and interoception). It is in these moments that I assist in directing the participant’s attention to these phenomena, at least enough simply to report them.

Before this state was the introversive state, samadhi or similar. It may be a reach, but I liken this to mindlessness. Typically, mindless is associated with a lack of care or concern or—and this will be expanded on later—an activity that is so simple that it is performed without thought. Hang on to those last two words: without thought.

Is it not that samadhi is partially defined as a state absent of conscious thought?
If so, we could say that it is a sort of mindless state. What is introversive, as per Wallis, is when personal consciousness is absorbed entirely by, or dissolves into, pure consciousness. Certainly, there are many semantic quandaries here (what do we mean when we say “mind,” “consciousness,” “personal,” etc.?). There are naturally difficulties expressing these experiences as well as describing their phenomenology. It’s inevitable that we arrive at the ineffable. It’s an “ineffitability.”

The vyutthana phase begins when various senses of I, primarily coming from memory, emerge “slowly from deep meditation.” My approach emphasises Wallis’ word “slowly.” Quite often, from such a deep meditation, or samadhi state, a sense of awe and wonder can dominate the attention of the participant. We could all benefit from more “shots of awe” as Jason Silva might say; the state of wonder is more and more elusive with hyper-stimulation and so it is by no means undesirable to behold amazement. Yet, just beneath that experience of awesomeness, I take the “golden opportunity” to capture what personal awareness can perceive in those precious minutes. For whatever can be perceived is, as Wallis says, “a direct expression of the simple, sweet, quietly alive sense of being at the Centre.”

I often put it this way: after the profound, direct experience of Source, a participant could be thinking, feeling, and sensing anything. And yet, in those several minutes—vyutthana—there are specific and identifiable thoughts, feelings, and sensations that can be observed/perceived. These are the direct expressions of the Oneness—gifts from pure consciousness perceived with personal awareness. Within this phase, the zone between mindlessness and mindfulness is one of integration.

This is where the “guidance” begins. This is where I, as a guide, can be in support of what can be the “take away.” What the mind observes in the moments of samadhi (mere minutes in my experience as a witness; often eternity in the participant’s) is not unimportant, yet, as the late Rajanaka Kshemaraja would have it, the moments emerging from samadhi are equally as important as the samadhi experience itself. This is my integration work. It happens in the immediacy of the peak experience.

After the session, when the identifiable phenomena have been consolidated, the participant is left to chop the wood and haul the water. This is when their “work” begins. And so, integration is engaging with that consolidated material. And given that the material is patently personal in nature, integration is a necessarily customised process. Each individual is on a unique path. In a session, their path has just been marked by an extraordinary experience. After the session, I use tracking and coaching to support them in actualising the potential.

 

to track
1 follow the course or trail of (someone or something), typically in order to find them or note their location at various points
follow and note the course or progress of
• follow a particular course

to coach
prompt or urge (someone) with instructions

What can be called “coaching” and “tracking”, then, is what follows a session with me, whether in subsequent in-person meetings or, more likely, video calls. As sacred witness to what was there in both the samadhi and vyutthana phases, I am able to remind the participant about what was presented (in the time that passed while fully dissolved), what was “presenced” directly after, and why it’s important.

The tracking is together recognising and interpreting the traces, the clues, the signs, that were apparent in the session. Like a trail of breadcrumbs outward (extroversive) from the Centre, the signs of the path are everywhere. Of course, as Daniel Schmidt, creator of the Samadhi films, would say, “the path is you.” Following the breadcrumbs inward (introversive) toward the Centre is always available. And so, the trail’s markings become invaluable.

The crumbs (the material that emerged into perception from the centre) may be thematic; related to repressed memories (biological or otherwise); sublimated behaviour; related to relationship; somatic/physical; theological/philosophical/metaphysical; or any number of such things. I may coach a participant to heed the signs on the path by addressing them in very simple and direct ways. This is a creative and collaborative process, as opposed to a prescriptive one. This is one of my favourite parts of what I do. It’s personalised and customised.

 

Personal path considerations
Sometimes the intention of the participant is reflected in what arises in the vyutthana phase, sometimes not. Since an intention is created with a certain degree of mindfulness, an experience of mindlessness—if indeed samadhi was realised—doesn’t always yield to what the mind wanted or intended. In other words, despite the intention, the participant and I attend to what arises. Again, sometimes there is an obvious correlation, sometimes not. What can be perceived directly after an experience of the Centre is paramount, and the faith in that primacy helps detach from what the participant wanted. The trope of getting what is needed, not necessarily what was wanted, can apply here.

Sometimes the information gathered before the session is reflected in what arises in the vyutthana phase. Taking in information about what circumstances a participant has lived and how they have been responding to those circumstances is, in many cases, a key component in tracking the material that is present in a session, whether in the samadhi or vyutthana phase. The trick is, as I mention above, not to let what has been gathered prior to the session to override the immediacy and primacy of what happens in session. I allow that whatever presents in the samadhi stage or vyutthanic phase are of greatest importance. I trust the unerringly divine nature of the experience and treat it as clarity itself. I then assist in making it coherent for the participant.

Sometimes the information gathered before the session is reflected in what arises in the samadhi phase. In the samadhi stage there can be a seemingly infinite array of presentations that can only leave me to deem the experience as utterly unpredictable. I believe this unpredictability is due to the entire human condition being available: anything a human could ever encounter (in the past or future) is possible to be presented here because the whole of consciousness is “channeled” via the body without the filter of the self-identifying parts of the mind. Much like a fetus presents in a certain way in relation to the cervix as it comes forth from the womb, I regard the participant’s body presentation (and any other phenomena) as an expression of human experience that may be biographical, perinatal, ancestral, or transpersonal in nature (bascially, a COEX system). This is an entire field of focus in and of itself and so I’ll leave further explorations to be expounded in other texts elsewhere.

 

5-MeO-DMT in a therapeutic context: a theramony
While the definition of a therapeutic orientation to 5-assisted work is up for grabs, my therapeutic approach is the combination of 1) the assessment of the individual’s life story, 2) the real-time integration in the session, and 3) tracking and coaching. By tracking the information gathered in the vyutthana stage, the participant is coached to take that and apply it. The application of that information is the “work”—the actualisation of the realisation. The work can be done with continued guidance sessions with me or not. Participants can lean on me as a tracker: I help a participant to see what’s on their path, coherently piecing together what the session revealed with what may be an optimal way to move forward.

I believe that each one of us is a wayfinder. This belief results in a process that empowers the tracker in us all. I use each session with 5 as an initiatory starting point from which a pattern can be seen to emerge. Whether someone is having their first session with 5 or their fifteenth, there will always be something to track. Naturally, most people become great trackers for themselves over time. At some point, clients seek me out less and less as they become more and more skilled at following the traces—the guidance that is everywhere.

 

A psychedelic guide
I am a guide, yes. I offer guidance. However, the guidance I offer with 5 isn’t about navigating multidimensional or transpersonal spaces in the session. The guidance is about navigating this human life by way of extracting what has sprung from the Centre and transmuting it into excellent, optimal living.

The word “heaven” is often depicted as being above the sky. The sky is above us. It’s vertical. Similarly, when we turn our attention to what we’re standing on, we’re aware of the ground. And it’s below us. There’s a continuation of that verticality. Now, when we look across from us with these human eyes, we see anything else that is before us as also on this ground. It’s horizontal. Each one of us, as long as our personal consciousness inhabits this Earth-suit, is an axis, a point at which these lines connect. And as we move about this life, we find optimal ways to “align” ourselves, vertically and horizontally. Sometimes we are “off-track.”

Re-alignment is a part of the constant course-correction of living. Guideposts help one stay on track, staying centred—”connected,” as it were—yet also grounded. After all, this human life is happening—for now—horizontally, on the ground, on Earth.

 

ungrounded
not electrically grounded: an ungrounded screen can act as an antenna

down-to-earth
with no illusions or pretensions; practical and realistic

 

The peak experience with 5—some may say a type of samadhi—may be the most ungrounded experience a human can have. Since the concepts of ground and of human are completely “up in the air,” there can be a cosmic, stellar, dreamy quality to the transcendent event.
As a guide, I help ground the experience.
As a guide, I help to bring heaven down-to-earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you may
also want
to read…

full release

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences,...

read more

essentially in good spirits

“[Source] is not an object; it is radical, ever-present Subject, and thus it is not something that is going to jump out in front of you like a rock, an image, an idea, a light, a feeling, an insight, a luminous cloud, an intense vision, or a sensation of great bliss. Those are all nice, but they are all objects, which is what [Source] is not.”

Ken Wilber

Essence: 1: a volatile substance or constituent,  2: a constituent or derivative possessing the special qualities (as of a plant or drug) in concentrated form; also, a preparation of such an essence or a synthetic substitute.

Spirit 1
: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2
: a supernatural being or essence: such as
 holy spirit or soul

A brief and incomplete timeline of contemporary use

Bufo: taken from bufo alvarius (the taxonomical name for the Sonoran Desert toad); often the word used for the secretion of this animal. Sometimes referred to as sapo or toad (not to be confused with rana or frog).

5: taken from the name of the molecular compound, 5-MeO-DMT. Sometimes referred to as the god molecule, 5-MeO, jaguar, and other various monikers. This is predominantly synthesised, however extraction from plants is also possible.

Contemporary use (by smoking the vapour) of bufo began, as far as anyone knows, in the early 1980s. Contemporary use (by insufflation and vapourisation) of 5 began in the 1960s (though it was first synthesised in 1937). Please click here for a better timeline).Generally, the usage was not broadcast very loudly. It was rare to learn about either bufo or 5, though some notable figures knew of one or the other: Terrence McKenna spoke of bufo; Ralph Metzner was a professor at the CIIS and detailed his use of Bufo and 5 throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s in The Toad and the Jaguar, 2013); Sasha Shulgin included his experiments with 5 in his book, TIHKAL (1997); in 2005, the first account of an extraordinarily difficult integration of 5, Darkness Shining Wild, was written by Robert Augustus Masters; in 2006, Stan Grof briefly articulated his first experience with 5 (decades earlier) in When the Impossible Happens; James Oroc’s Tryptamine Palace was published in 2009…. Despite these mentions from some, the use of 5 (and especially bufo) was more or less absent from the discourse on psychedelics.

That changed around the beginning of the 2010s, when two people began to use the internet to share that they were offering bufo to whoever would like to have it. These two individuals are from Mexico and I call that marker in time the Mexican Wave.

This Wave was an unprecedented phenomenon that has contributed to a wider awareness of bufo and, consequently, 5. Remarkably, before the Mexican Wave, the waters were still: not only was it rare to hear about the general usage of either bufo or 5, but learning about dubious practices with them were basically unheard of. The Wave has had a wake behind it. Without digressing, however, I will get into the substance of my writing here.

 

Spirit vs. Essence

What does bufo have that 5 doesn’t?
If 5 were extracted from bufo, what would it be considered?

The secretion of the toad naturally has many components, not just 5-MeO-DMT. These components and their composition can only be found in this one species of toad, the alvarius (sidenote: the term bufo is a misnomer, since bufo is the genus of all creatures we call toads, and alvarius is the name of the specific species of toad we are taking about). Apparently, 5 is not a component in any of the hundreds of other species of toads, but only in the alvarius. So, the practical difference between 5 and bufo is that the latter has an assemblage of other ingredients.

Put simply, the composition of the various components of bufo are unique: arguably, no other creature possesses such a concoction. Therefore, I recognise that there is a spirit of the toad.

And, if 5 were not one of the components of bufo, no one would be smoking it. Its ‘spirit’, like the spirit of the hundreds of other species of toads, would not be appreciated by anyone in this same way. I have yet to hear anyone use the word ‘medicine’ for the secretion of any other toad.

5, then, is the essential component to this concoction we call bufo. The concoction—a natural blessing, to be sure—hosts the essence.

But why am I not considering that bufo (here I mean the secretion) is the essence of the animal? Because the same ‘effect’ is happening when using 5.

Is that true, one asks? What about that entourage or bouquet effect that occurs due to all those other components…. While the answer to that will most likely always be subjective, I will rely heavily on this one likelihood: no one would smoke bufo if it didn’t have 5 in it.

 

5 is essential. 5 is the essence.

Quintessence: 1: the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form, 2: the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is the substance composing the celestial bodies

Let’s take, for example, coffee. Coffee is generally consumed because it has caffeine in it. The caffeine isn’t the only component to what we call coffee. It is, however, why we use it. Smoking bufo without its essence may be analogous to drinking de-caffeinated coffee. In the case of bufo, then, ‘de-fived bufo’. Or, a coffee substitute, like chicory for example, may be like smoking the secretion of another species of toad. It’ll have spirit, like the chicory surely has, but not the essential thing we’re looking for. Caffeine, following this train of thought, is the essence of coffee.

Different people report different things in their findings with both bufo and 5. I suggest that it is impossible to objectively know if the entourage of components that make up the spirit offer anything to the essential experience that characterises 5. The word ‘different’ seems to be the common denominator. Your subjective experience is your individual truth. My guess is that individual truth evolves in many ways throughout a lifetime. Is it possible, then, that there is an evolution in moving towards what is essential?

Whether with bufo or 5, essentially, it is. All. (t)here.

 

What characterises this essence?

Essence: from Middle English essencia, from Latin essentia, from esse to be — more at IS

The unique function of 5-MeO-DMT is its efficacy in revealing the source of All. All what? Well, everything. Even nothing.

Often, the potential peak experience (what I often call a ‘full release’) with 5-MeO-DMT is related to the non-dual teachings of the most robust bodies of wisdom, ie. Taoism, Vedic texts, etc., as well as many modern ones (i.e., Mooji, Rupert Spira, et al). Without getting into what the words non-duality, or, singularity, attempt to describe, I often use the word ‘Source’ to underline the idea that all binaries, polarities, dualities have a source. That source can only be One. The word ‘Spirit’ (with a capital S) is sometimes used in the place of Source, for instance by modern non-dual thinker/philosopher Ken Wilber (quoted above). Indeed, the ineffable—paradoxically yet understandably—has many names and words; humans have always tried to ‘eff’ it.

My purpose for cursorily delving into such an immense tangent here is that there is a characteristic of 5-MeO-DMT that is seemingly unlike any other substance: that it reveals this One—this source of All—so effectively that it would seem to be its very function.

If the source of All is indeed revealed by both 5 and bufo alike, then one could say that spirit is not necessary for the revelation to occur. Spirit—in this case the entourage of components that make up bufo—is non-essential. But what is essential? Is the potential peak experience the modus operandi of 5-MeO-DMT?

That question, I suggest, is certainly of the essence.

To be continued….

 

 

you may
also want
to read…

full release

full release

“The two types of peak experiences are relative and absolute. Relative characterise those peak experiences in which there remains an awareness of subject and object, and which are extensions of the individual’s own experiences. They are not true mystical experiences,...

read more