SuttaCentral
The British didn’t introduce tea to India. There’s a rather large country near India that has been brewing tea for a long time. In fact, Britain got their tea from this land, to the extent of starting a war over it.
I’m sure someone from that very large unspecified antique nation at one point brought down a cup.
Hi Puerh,
Thanks for your reply.
Sadly, the claim doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
Even if we set aside the suggested 750BCE date for the Ramayana (too early even for the oldest parts of the text, in my opinion), the botanical identity of the plant called saṃjīvani isn’t at all certain and indeed, could well be mythical (the name meaning ‘vivifying’).
of course. The support would exist from the fact of mention the existence of some tea, instead from the plant.
Well I think the point of the thread is about the possible existence of tea at Buddha times. Maybe the existence of an infusion with camellia sinensis is very difficult to support with what we know today. Although if we think in another variety then it would be quite possible, I think.
I don’t think there’s mention of a hot drink taken for leisure or medicinal purposes AFAIK. Maybe there was something like modern day ‘rasam’? Rasam recipe | How to make rasam recipe without rasam powder
Oh. I always confuse the rasam recipe with the napalm recipe. 
Tea just seems so much more peaceful. 
I’m pretty sure that when people talk about the British bringing tea to India, they are talking about ‘most of India’. Assam is way East in the border lands, and I am not sure if tea was ever growing outside of Assam in India before the British. So all aside from this far off border land (geographically and culturally very different from the rest of India), India didn’t have tea.
I mean no ill-will, but I couldn’t resist.
when we look to the past, we tend to believe the people was very isolated in their own lands. However, there was a lot of mobility and commerce. On my side I think quite difficult to believe the tea was not known in other places of India. Well, just a view. No confirmation at all.
It’s not a very useful view if it’s totally devoid of evidence.
The evidence is actually the suttas themselves which document the extent of the Buddha’s travels. He certainly walked farther than the short mile I walk to breakfast.
The evidence that there was tea in India outside of Assam, before the British, is found in “the suttas themselves”, where exactly? Please feel free to quote and reference.
You are quite right. There is no evidence of tea in the suttas. I was simply pointing out that your dismissal of Puerh’s statement regrettably used “totally”. Puerh was making an inference based on trade. You basically mocked Puerh and I objected to the lack of kindness. Note that I will have to apologize to both of you if Puerh did not in fact feel mocked and dismissed.
it’s ok… We keep views while there is no evidence. When have the evidence then we have the certainty and we don’t keep views.
Anyway the historical issue is not really relevant to know if tea is an intoxicant or similar.
And I offer apology to both you and Senryu. 
not needed, you nice 
