Greetings,
I was reading this essay by Bhante @bksubhuti on the 3rd precept:
One point caught my attention: the text emphasizes the importance of parental consent for a union not to be considered a violation of the precept. It explicitly states that eloping would constitute a breach of this precept.
While reading this, I was reminded of the story of the hunter Kukkuṭamitta, as narrated in the commentary on the Dhammapada verse 124. According to the commentary, his wife (a daughter of a rich man) was a sotapanna from childhood, a fact the Buddha had to confirm emphatically, given that she assisted her husband by maintaining his hunting tools.
However, I wanted to examine the conduct of Kukkuṭamitta’s wife regarding the 3rd precept, as she (already a sotapanna) fled her home to join him. She did so without her parents’ consent, and they even performed funeral rites for her. Furthermore, when the Buddha approached Kukkuṭamitta’s family to teach the Dhamma, neither Kukkuṭamitta nor their children were familiar with her family of origin.
This raises some questions:
- Could parental consent be dispensable in certain situations?
- In the case of the hunter’s wife, being a sotapanna, is her decision to flee her parents’ home still justifiable? A sotapanna is said to possess immaculate virtue, so what could make her actions justifiable?
- Is this narrative considered canonical? Is it possible that some elements of this narrative may not fully align with the facts?