(Why) Did the Buddha grief his family?

[ItsRaining]

This seems like kind of a weird question but the Buddha is free of attachments and sees the emptiness of dharmas right? So why did he go into the forest (to hide?) after the death of the Shakya clan and saying he felt empty after the deaths of Sariputra and Maugdalayana?

[Simon E.]

Contrary to popular belief seeing the emptiness of Dharmas does not mean that one becomes an emotionless robot. Its just that one doesn't forge an identity around those emotions. They arise, they pass.

[ItsRaining]

Contrary to popular belief seeing the emptiness of Dharmas does not mean that one becomes an emotionless robot. Its just that one doesn't forge an identity around those emotions. They arise, they pass.

For emotions to arise and pass like that wouldn’t there need to be attachment or desire first? The Buddha is free of attachment to dharmas right?

[KristenM]

Contrary to popular belief seeing the emptiness of Dharmas does not mean that one becomes an emotionless robot. Its just that one doesn't forge an identity around those emotions. They arise, they pass.

For emotions to arise and pass like that wouldn’t there need to be attachment or desire first? The Buddha is free of attachment to dharmas right?

Like Simon said, being free of attachment doesn't mean being unexposed to thoughts, feelings, dharmas. It means not clinging to them as solid things. I don't think the Buddha's teaching is about becoming a feelingless robot. True freedom is seeing the impermanent, empty nature of things. One can't put the cart before the horse and be immune from everything without experiential knowledge of life and death, suffering etc. The Dalai Lama sheds a tear when people tell their life stories, too, sometimes.

[ItsRaining]

Contrary to popular belief seeing the emptiness of Dharmas does not mean that one becomes an emotionless robot. Its just that one doesn't forge an identity around those emotions. They arise, they pass.

For emotions to arise and pass like that wouldn’t there need to be attachment or desire first? The Buddha is free of attachment to dharmas right?

Like Simon said, being free of attachment doesn't mean being unexposed to thoughts, feelings, dharmas. It means not clinging to them as solid things. I don't think the Buddha's teaching is about becoming a feelingless robot. True freedom is seeing the impermanent, empty nature of things. One can't put the cart before the horse and be immune from everything without experiential knowledge of life and death, suffering etc. The Dalai Lama sheds a tear when people tell their life stories, too, sometimes.

That's true, but I imagine it also depends on the circumstances. Shakyamuni is an Nirmankaya right? I doubt the Dharmakaya or Reward body would be able to give rise to those things. Or maybe I'm wrong again

[Soma999]

Many masters cried. They are not like stones. They cut through all the bullshit. But they are far from being insensitive.

[Kuluru]

Hello,

[...] So why did he go into the forest (to hide?) after the death of the Shakya clan and saying he felt empty after the deaths of Sariputra and Maugdalayana?

The Buddha didn't say that he "felt empty". He said (Ukkacela Sutta, emphasis mine):

"Bhikkhus, this assembly appears to me empty now that Sāriputta and Moggallana have attained final Nibbāna."

And as far as "his feelings" were concerned:

"It is wonderful, bhikkhus, on the part of the Tathagata, it is amazing on the part of the Tathagata, that when such a pair of disciples has attained final Nibbāna, there is no sorrow or lamentation in the Tathagata."

[Sentient Light]

The assumption here is that grief implies suffering or sorrow.

[ItsRaining]

Hello,

[...] So why did he go into the forest (to hide?) after the death of the Shakya clan and saying he felt empty after the deaths of Sariputra and Maugdalayana?

The Buddha didn't say that he "felt empty". He said (Ukkacela Sutta, emphasis mine):

"Bhikkhus, this assembly appears to me empty now that Sāriputta and Moggallana have attained final Nibbāna."

And as far as "his feelings" were concerned:

"It is wonderful, bhikkhus, on the part of the Tathagata, it is amazing on the part of the Tathagata, that when such a pair of disciples has attained final Nibbāna, there is no sorrow or lamentation in the Tathagata."

Ah, thank you. I guess I should check the Sutras rather rely on retelling.

[ItsRaining]

The assumption here is that grief implies suffering or sorrow.

Without attachment and seeing it’s emptiness means it’s no longer suffering?

[Aemilius]

Hello,

[...] So why did he go into the forest (to hide?) after the death of the Shakya clan and saying he felt empty after the deaths of Sariputra and Maugdalayana?

The Buddha didn't say that he "felt empty". He said (Ukkacela Sutta, emphasis mine):

"Bhikkhus, this assembly appears to me empty now that Sāriputta and Moggallana have attained final Nibbāna."

And as far as "his feelings" were concerned:

"It is wonderful, bhikkhus, on the part of the Tathagata, it is amazing on the part of the Tathagata, that when such a pair of disciples has attained final Nibbāna, there is no sorrow or lamentation in the Tathagata."

Can you find the source for the other story also, please? -I haven't read it before.

[Sentient Light]

The assumption here is that grief implies suffering or sorrow.

Without attachment and seeing it’s emptiness means it’s no longer suffering?

Yes. It is, actually, quite a beautiful process, a recollection of the love and kindness gifted through that relation. Grief will always follow love, because no love can ever be won that won't be lost. But when loss is truly accepted as implicit within love itself, then the experience of grief transforms dramatically from sorrow and despair to equanimity and compassion. You may cry, but you may also laugh, because you received a gift so beautiful and precious.

[Sentient Light]

Can you find the source for the other story also, please? -I haven't read it before.

It's in one of the BDK Agama translations, but I can't for the life of me remember which one.

[Way-Fun]

He sees the emptiness of dharmas that are, nevertheless, the fundamental constituents of reality. Empty friends and loved ones are the only kind you will ever know. Tears that are not tears, grief that is not grief. An empty chair is real enough to sit on.

[jet.urgyen]

Contrary to popular belief seeing the emptiness of Dharmas does not mean that one becomes an emotionless robot. Its just that one doesn't forge an identity around those emotions. They arise, they pass.