मठेष्वभोज्यमन्नं स्याद्
भुक्त्वा चान्द्रायणञ्चरेत्।
स्पृष्ट्वा मठपतिञ्चैव
सवसा जलमाविषेत्।।
"Food in monasteries is forbidden for a sannyasi. If one eats it, one must perform Chandrayana penance. Even touching the head of a monastery requires the sannyasi to enter water fully clothed for purification."
This verse is found in a text called *"Yati Dharma Sangraha"* — a treatise on the discipline of renunciation — published by Anandashrama, on page 116, cited from the Padma Purana.
In context, this verse addresses the dietary discipline for sannyasis, declaring that monastery food and the monastery head are to be avoided as impure.
*The meaning is:*
Monastery food is forbidden for a sannyasi. If, overcome by hunger and with no alternative, a sannyasi eats monastery food, he must perform one *Chandrayana vrata* as atonement. And if — even accidentally — he touches the monastery head, or the monastery head respectfully touches him, the sannyasi must enter water fully clothed for purification.
Now, a monastery has a temple, offerings are made there — so why is that food more impure than food begged from a good householder? And the monastery head is considered a great sannyasi in society — how then is he as impure as a dog or chandala according to sannyasa discipline? Let us reflect on the meaning of this ancient verse.
---
*Two great misconceptions exist in society:*
That temple offerings (bhog) are supremely pure.
That monastery heads are sannyasis of the highest order.
These misconceptions cannot be cleared without understanding scriptural law.
The chief priests of monastery-temples are called *Gosains* — they are arudhapatitta (fallen from the pinnacle). Just as gods are the highest beings, yet their elder brothers the Asuras consider themselves superior — similarly, the sannyasa ashrama is the highest of all ashramas. And those who consider themselves superior to sannyasis are the Gosains (arudhapatitta), precisely because no ashrama is higher than sannyasa. Today these fallen Gosains are known by titles like Sampradayacharya, Mahant, Mandleshwar, Adhikari, Mahamandleshwar, etc.
*Three reasons for their fallen status:*
*Parigraha* — accumulation of wealth/property, rightfully or wrongfully, for running the monastery, which is contrary to sannyasa dharma.
*Panktibheda* — the sin of sitting on higher seats and eating separately from other sannyasis — a demonic (asura) transgression.
*Lokayajita* — performing rituals for public fame and social authority.
---
Someone may ask: just as Indra and Brihaspati have elevated seats and superior enjoyments, why shouldn't the monastery head's special status be similarly accepted?
The answer is: the elevated status and food-arrangements of gods exist in a non-sannyasa context. In sannyasa, even a guru — though worthy of salutation — is equal to his sannyasi disciples. Distinction in seating or eating is not permissible even for the guru. And parigraha (accumulation) is not valid at any stage of sannyasa.
---
*Regarding temple offerings* — briefly stated: food does not become pure merely because it is offered. It can be considered prasad only if offered with proper ritual procedure.
Food containing *salt and chili* is not even fit for Balivaishadeva (the daily ritual offering), let alone pure enough to be divine prasad. At *Jagannath Puri, no salt, chili, or tempering (*chhaunk) is used in any offering. The arudhapatitta eat anything, cook any way, and call it "offered to God" — making it pure. This is contrary to dharma.
Just as the leftover of a Vamamargi (left-hand tantric path) worshipper of the same deity is impure for a Dakshinachari (right-hand path follower) — similarly, *monastery food is as impure as a chandala's food* for one established in the sannyasa ashrama.