The Holy Mushroom Page 8
Citations to Dr. Andrija Puharich
(The Sacred Mushroom, N.Y., 1959):
Ch. XVII, Pg. 296, ft. #67
Ch. XVIII, Pg. 301, ft. #4
From The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross:
Ch. XVII, pg. 163:
The Amanita muscaria is, after all, a poisonous fungus. Whilst not the most dangerous, its drugs have a serous effect on the nervous system, and taken regularly over a long period would in the end kill the addict. Among its drugs so far isolated are Muscarine, Atropine, and Bufotenin. (67) The first causes vomiting and diarrhoea, and stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system so that the partaker is capable of great feats of muscular exertion and endurance. The stories which came down of the fantastic strength exhibited by cultic heroes, however mythical the events described, have probably that element of real fact. So, too, the idea that the Maenads in their wild raving through the conifer forests were capable of tearing animals limb from limb, was not entirely devoid of truth.
Atropine first stimulates the nervous system and then paralyses it. It is this poison that is primarily responsible for the hallucinatory effects of the sacred fungus, but also for the muscular convulsions that must have seemed to the bystanders like the demons within, wrestling with the newly imbibed power of the god.
Bufotenin, a secretion otherwise found in the sweat glands of the African toad, lowers the pulse rate and temperature…
Ch. XVII, Pg. 296, endnote #67:
See Andrija Puharich The Sacred Mushroom, N.Y., 1959, pp. 113ff.
Puharich pg. 113-114:
A number of problems had to be explored. The first one was the chemical analysis of the mushroom, the question here being the composition of the drugs present within the plant. The second problem was to apply the chemicals from the Amanita muscaria to human beings in order to understand its psychic effects. The third problem was to learn to handle the drug in such a way as to minimize or avoid its poisonous action.
The chemical studies with the mushroom confirmed what had already been found in the literature and did not turn up any new evidence. The mushroom like all plants is a composite of many chemicals. However, there are three chemicals in the Amanita muscaria that are of interest in their relationship to psychic effects: (1) muscarine, (2) atropine, (3) bufotenin.
Muscarine when applied to biological systems shows itself as a chemical whose effects can be divided into a number of phases. The initial effect of muscarine is to stimulate the parasympathetic nerve endings, and this is observed in the vomiting and diarrhea usually following Amanita muscaria ingestion. That part of the sympathetic nervous system which is at the head and tail end of the human body is called the parasympathetic nervous system, and in general it is the one that is stimulated by muscarine.
In has been noted by observers in Siberia that the shaman who uses the Amanita muscaria is capable of great feats of muscular exertion and endurance. It is believed that a part of this prodigious ability for muscular exertion is achieved by the use of the mushroom and that the particular chemical responsible is muscarine. However, after its initial stimulating effect, muscarine then acts as a poison and paralyzes the very nerves which it has stimulated. In this paralysis lies the cause of death from the accidental use of this mushroom.
The atropine present in the Amanita muscaria is commonly known as belladonna and was known to the ancients as the deadly nightshade. Atropine alone first stimulates the central nervous system and then paralyzes it. It causes hallucinations and may lead to convulsions. Curiously enough, atropine is a specific antidote to muscarine; that is, it counteracts the effects of muscarine on nerve-muscle endings which result in the symptoms described above. Therefore, large doses of muscarine can be counteracted by a proper dose of atropine…
From The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
Ch. XVIII, pg. 177-178:
The transient nature of the “gardens of Adonis” is exemplified in the rapid growth and as speedy disappearance of the mushroom. Jonah’s “sunshade” fungus was eaten by worms the day after it appeared: “it came into being in a night and perished in a night” (Jonah 3:10). A modern observer of the Amanita muscaria detected its first appearance at 8 a.m. and by 4 p.m. the same day the fungus was fully grown and beginning to rot. (4)
Ch. XVIII, pg. 301, endnote #4:
Andrija Puharich, op. cit. p. 111
Puharich pg. 111:
All in all, my early morning adventure was quite a success in that I had found seventeen specimens of Amanita muscaria in two hours. I got to the laboratory at 8:00 A.M. and announced my findings to my colleagues. I told them that all the specimens I had found were newly budded and probably would not mature for at least twenty-four hours. But we decided to check them sooner to see how they were coming along. At three o’clock in the afternoon, which was about eight hours after I had first found these mushrooms popping through the ground, I went back to look at my find. I was utterly amazed; the seventeen mushrooms had become full-grown, and, of these, ten were almost rotten from the heat of the sun and worm infestation. Here I discovered something which none of the books had mentioned about the Amanita muscaria. There is a certain small slug of a pale oystery color with two little horns on its head which seems to live only for an Amanita muscaria fest. These little slugs attack the mushroom from the base of the stalk and ascend the stalk in its interior by eating their way along it. This, of course, cuts off vital nutrition from the mushroom, and so it collapses.
Commentary
To further confuse the problem for Allegro, Puharich appears to claim that he reexamined the chemical constituents of the Amanita himself:
A number of problems had to be explored. The first one was the chemical analysis of the mushroom, the question here being the composition of the drugs present within the plant. […] The chemical studies with the mushroom confirmed what had already been found in the literature and did not turn up any new evidence.
Whether Puharich actually reexamined the chemicals in the Amanita or not is of no consequence, though he probably did not. The literature used by Puharich was outdated by the time of Allegro’s writing by more than ten years. As stated in Astrotheology & Shamanism (Irvin et al, 2006):
Allegro fell under disrepute among chemists, pharmacologists and psychedelic researchers because he quoted Andrija Puharich (who quoted erroneous pharmacology - Wieland & Motzel, 1953) in regards to the chemicals present in the Amanita muscaria. Puharich had not verified the chemical composition himself, and this reflected badly on Allegro.
It would be interesting to discover exactly why Wasson attacked Allegro, and not Puharich, for the chemical composition errors in regard to the Amanita muscaria. A focused paper on the subject of ulterior motives within entheogenic scholarship is necessary and might fruit interesting results.
Ramsbottom, Graves, Puharich and Allegro all used earlier sources in wide distribution, though Puharich had stated, or at least implied, that he had done chemical analysis himself.
Puharich was in fact a medical doctor, and should have been capable of chemical analysis, but it appears that he may have intentionally misled the reader by implying that he reexamined the chemicals. On the other hand, as far as I’m able to discern, Wasson said nothing to Ramsbottom or Graves regarding his opinion of berserker rage and violence (above), even though Wasson had contacted Ramsbottom in regards to the Plaincourault fresco to correct this so-called error. It is also not clear if Wasson contacted Schultes, who made a similar blurred statement (below). We can only surmise the possibility that Wasson respected Ramsbottom, Schultes and Graves, but for whatever biased reason, perhaps because he challenged him, had no respect for Allegro.
Interestingly, whether important or not, Puharich remarks on the issue of earning Wasson’s respect in his description of their first meeting together, page 66–67:
On February 12, 1955, I did meet Mr. R. Gordon Wasson. Alice had invited him to her house for cocktails. I distinctly remember Mr. Wasson’s presence that evening as he walk
ed into the room, a vigorous, not-too-tall gentleman in his fifties, and quite distinguished. He seemed a little hesitant about talking to strangers about the nature of his interest in mushrooms. I could not tell whether he was looking upon us as potential rivals or as newly found partners in this lore which he pursued. But my question was soon dispelled, because as soon as he found out that we were interested in the cultural, or ethnic, side of mushrooms he beamed and brightened and began to speak quite freely.
I soon found that I was dealing with quite an expert. I didn’t want to leave any false impression with him, so I hastily informed him that my interest in mushrooms was rather recent and that I myself knew very little about the subject. I told him that I was particularly interested in the possible ritual and religious connotations of the mushroom.
~ Andrija Puharich
Citations to Dr. Richard Evans Schultes
Ch. V, Pg. 229, endnote #16:
Ch. XI, Pg. 258, endnote #14:
From The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross:
Ch. V, pg. 39, (as above):
…it is not surprising that the mushroom should have become the centre of a mystery cult in the Near East which persisted for thousands of years. There seems good evidence that from there it swept into India in the cult of the Soma some 3,500 years ago; it certainly flourished in Siberia until quite recent times, and is found even today in certain parts of South America. (16)
Ch. V, Pg. 229, endnote #16:
R. E. Schultes “Hallucinogens of Plant Origin” in Science Vol. 163, No. 3864, 17 Jan. 1969, pp. 245–54
Note: This is the same reference as above with Wasson – referencing Schultes’ entire article. The most important pages to this discussion are pg. 245–46.
Schultes in Science Vol. 163, pg. 245–46:
The hallucinogenic use of the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) by primitive tribesmen in Siberia came to the attention of Europeans in the 18th century. This fungus – widespread in north-temperate parts of both hemispheres – has long been recognized as toxic; its name refers to the European custom of employing it to poison flies. In recent times, its use as an inebriant has been known in only two centers: extreme western Siberia, among Finno-Ugrian peoples, the Ostyak and Vogul; and extreme northeastern Siberia, among the Chukchi, Koryak, and Kamehadal. Tradition established the use of fly agaric by witch doctors of the Lapps of Inari in Europe and of the Yakagir of northernmost Siberia. Formerly, the narcotic employment of Amanita muscaria was apparently more widespread, and it has even been suggested that the ancient giant berserkers of Norway induced their occasional fits of savage madness by ingesting this mushroom (7).
In Siberia, several mushrooms, often an expensive article of trade, suffice to cause an intoxication. They may be taken as extracts in cold or warm water or milk, either alone or with the juice of Vaccinium uliginosum or Epilobium angustifolium. Sometimes, a dried mushroom may simply be held, moistened, in the mouth. Among the Koryak, the women chew the mushrooms and roll them into elongated pellets which the men swallow.
From The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross:
Ch. XI, pg. 94:
The mushroom imagery is here dramatically evident. The prophet sees the Amanita muscaria, its glowing red cap studded with the white flakes of the broken pellicle from the volva. In this skin lies the hallucinatory drug, one of whose properties is to enhance the perceptive faculties, making colours brighter and objects far larger or smaller than their real size. (14)
Ch. XI, Pg. 258, endnote #14:
XIV p. 132. “An hour after the ingestion of the mushrooms, twitching and trembling of the limbs is noticeable, with the onset of a period of good humour and light euphoria, characterised by macroscopia, visions of the supernatural and illusions of grandeur”, R. E. Schultes ‘Hallucigens [sic] of Plant Origin’ in Science Vol. 163, No. 3864 [transposed!], (17 Jan. 1969), p. 246
Schultes in Science Vol. 163, pg. 246:
“Effects of Amanita muscaria vary appreciably with individuals and at different times. An hour after the ingestion of the mushrooms, twitching and trembling of the limbs is noticeable with the onset of a period of good humor and light euphoria, characterized by macroscopia, visions of the supernatural and illusions of grandeur. Religious overtones-such as an urge to confess sins-frequently occur. Occasionally, the partaker becomes violent, dashing madly about until, exhausted, he drops into a deep sleep.
Since 1869, when muscarine was isolated, most workers have assumed that the toxicity and hallucinogenic properties of Amanita muscaria could be attributed to this alkaloid. Studies have shown, however, that muscarine is a minor constituent which could not be alone responsible. The same is true of the trace amounts of bufotenine reported in the carpophores. Recent pharmacological tests show that the central nervous system activity is due primarily to muscimole, an unsaturated cyclic hydroxamic acid, and two amino acids, ibotenic acid, and the less active muscazone. Since ibotenic acid is a precursor for muscazone, the variation in intoxication potential of the fly agaric may be due to fluctuations in the ratio between these two constituents. There is evidence that still other as yet uncharacterized principles may take part in the toxicity of this species (8).”
Commentary
Schultes repeats the theme, suggesting “the ancient giant berserkers of Norway induced their occasional fits of savage madness by ingesting this mushroom.” Wasson challenged this presumption in Soma in 1968 (above), though it was ignored by Schultes.
Allegro did not utilize Schultes’s research on the constituents of Amanita muscaria. Regardless, Schultes is not 100% clear either: “There is evidence that still other as yet uncharacterized principles may take part in the toxicity…” This last sentence likely left Allegro feeling that nobody knew the chemical constituents for certain, so he went with the one person who seemed sure of himself: Puharich. Puharich’s interpretation matched with Graves’s descriptions (above), as well as the many descriptions of berserker violence.
Also to be seen in the endnote are two errors made by Allegro, one a spelling error, and the other a transposed number.
Other Unsupported Claims
In recent years Ruck and Mark Hoffman have promoted the idea that Wasson was changing his opinion about Allegro and his work, and was frustrated over the fact that Allegro never responded to him:
Wasson, himself, however, was in the process of changing his opinion. From his letters, we know that he was intrigued with the work of Allegro and frustrated by his unanswered attempt to initiate correspondence.
~ Carl Ruck, Fungus Redivivus
However, it should be clear why Allegro never responded to Wasson’s personal letter. We see that on September 14, 1970, Wasson wrote the personal letter to Allegro, but before Allegro could have received or responded to it, Wasson wrote his letters to the editor of the TLS, Crook, and his scathing attack in the TLS, both on September 16, 1970. With the September 14th and 16th letters being only two days apart, and before Allegro could have possibly responded, it is clear why Allegro never bothered to respond to Wasson and only further distanced himself from him. Furthermore, why should Allegro bother to respond to someone who clearly hadn’t studied his book carefully? Allegro had countered Wasson using his own words. Wasson was furious and only felt the need to publicly attack Allegro. On top of this, Wasson’s flip-flopping remark “rightly or wrongly” (as discussed) was enough for Allegro to see the waffling in Wasson’s logic.
Both Mark Hoffman and Ruck were asked repeatedly for other supporting evidence or letters from Wasson that show his change of mind toward Allegro, or specific changes regarding mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity and the Plaincourault fresco, etc. Mark Hoffman’s most recent responses were wholly contradictory (Hoffman, Aug. 28, 2007):
“…i [sic] know that he [Wasson] was also very eager to return to Christianity. (There is at least one letter where he clearly expresses his desire in this direction.)”
“There is not one single letter [from Wasson] that comes to mind, just a wide and open in
terest [into Christianity] dating to the 1950’s… far too wide to discuss here.”
~ Mark Hoffman
Until writing this, I have waited nearly two years for any evidence to support their claims. I have not seen anything that could support their claims that Wasson was in the process of changing his opinion with regard to Allegro or mushrooms in Christianity. The only statement I could find that hinted towards any difference in Wasson’s public and private beliefs was in Soma, pg. 174: “We were still unwilling to sponsor openly the notion of a divine mushroom among our own ancestors.” In other words, Wasson admits by saying the word “openly” that his private opinion may be different than what he wrote publicly. However, this statement may only be in specific regard to European ancestors, which he states on page 176: “I shall begin by saying where in Europe’s past I have not found the cult of the sacred mushroom.” He then goes on to discuss witchcraft, the druids and berserkers. I should point out that recently Peter Lamborn Wilson, Christian Rätsch et al, and Ruck et al (2007), have published evidence of mushroom use in each of these practices. And if Wasson’s own private beliefs are different than those he holds publicly, why not allow Allegro to further investigate the matter? No other evidence, other than Hoffman and Ruck’s mere speculation, seems forthcoming.