tulsi
Cultural layer
Marc Maurice Cohen, Tulsi, Ocimum sanctum: A herb for all reasons (Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, 2014)
Ocimum tenuiflorum L. (Plants of the World Online, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, accessed 2026-10-08)
Madhur Jaffrey's Indian Cookery (Madhur Jaffrey, 1982)
Route
PendingThe routes are written. They are not yet mapped.
This entry's cultural layer already names where it came from and how it moved. What it does not yet carry is that movement as structure: ordered waypoints with real coordinates, and a mechanism on each leg. Until it does, the layer stays an empty slot rather than a drawn line, because a map built from prose would be a guess with a projection under it.
1 of 409 entries carries a mapped route · nutmeg is the prototype
- Waypoints
Ordered places, each with its kind
- Coordinates
Real positions, with the gazetteer they came from
- Segments
From, to, and the mechanism that moved it
- Confidence
Documented, attributed or contested
- Summary
What the route argues, in a sentence
Rite
Tulsi is a goddess before it is a herb. Grown in a raised courtyard shrine rather than a garden bed, watered daily and lit at dusk, it is Vishnu's consort in plant form, and in many households it is married to him in an annual ceremony with a full wedding. It is picked for offering and for medicine and only incidentally for tea. The plant is a member of the household with obligations owed to it.
Madhur Jaffrey's Indian Cookery (Madhur Jaffrey, 1982)
Names · co-equal, marked by how each one travelled
FoodwayPresent as a living food culture.
No names recorded.
Connections
8 bonds · 8 sourcedTulsi kadha, the herbal decoction.
Tulsi kadha.
Kadha, the household tulsi decoction.
Tulsi kadha.
Tulsi kadha.
Tulsi kadha.
Tulsi kadha.
Score unexamined
Madhur Jaffrey's Indian Cookery (Madhur Jaffrey, 1982)
Bonds are drawn from culinary literature and origin-tradition references, tiered by source. Origin means a reference from the place. Witness means the pairing is the place's own and the reference documenting it was written from outside.
The score is cultural weight: how central a pairing is in the tradition that documents it. It is not a prediction of how two materials behave in a formulation and not a measure of chemical affinity. The scale is ordinal, because centrality is a judgement rather than a measurement: 1.0 where the pair is the dish, 0.9 a fixed named form, 0.8 a canonical dish, 0.7 recurrent across many dishes, 0.6 common, 0.5 attested, 0.4 marginal or compound-led.
Each score is set against a named dish and carries that dish in its note. Where a score has not been examined it says so, because an inherited figure and a researched one should not look alike.
The dish is named by a reader who knows the cuisine and cites a source appropriate to it. It has not yet been confirmed inside that source page by page, so a note records what supports a score rather than what has been checked in the book.
Studio Culinar-E, "tulsi", Pantry Archive, Studio Monk-E, 2026. https://studioculinar-e.com/archive/tulsi
/archive/tulsi
Bonds are tiered by source, origin-tradition references first.