user13375: This is from the Theravada Vinaya:

While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was
previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those
monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal
issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m
happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.”
Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka

How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this question.

You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here:

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in
Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks,
nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and
teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in
suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded
by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers,
and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in
suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the
group?”
Ud 4.5


user254: Similar to Andrei's answer I note (as fact) that it's a narration of what the Buddha thought, not what he said.
Going even further I might speculate that it's similar to Mother's saying to children, "While sitting in his office, Dad thought, 'Isn't it good that the children are playing quietly, and doing their homework'" -- i.e. it's said to convey a message, needn't be understood (except perhaps by children in question) as a direct and verbatim quote.
Lastly I don't get the impression from the suttas that the Buddha had no preferences. Apparently he preferred what's ethical, skillful, conditions for successful practice, compassionate, etc. (and that doctrine may be easier to understand than a doctrine like, "lol, nothing exists: good, bad, it's all the same..." -- especially for inter-personal relationships).
I wonder whether we're meant to see literally-all the Buddha's actions as motivated only by this kind of preference and this kind of intent -- so much so that any spark of evidence to the contrary (like a preference for avoiding quarrels) is seen as questionable and demanding an explanation.
I suppose it is possible -- that the basis for the preference is that his hanging around while people quarrel would be unskillful.
I'm not sure -- which is why I think this is a good question and which I hope someone answers.
Canonically perhaps there are specific types of preference which an arahant is free from:

Sensual desire (kāmacchando)
Desire for existence and rebirth, both material and immaterial (rūparāgo and arūparāgo)

To be logical perhaps it would be enough to explain that the preference isn't based on one of these fetters.

user43: Obviously that entire text was authored by someone else, speaking about the Buddha in the third person.
In my understanding, the part about the Buddha leaving the quarreling Sangha is based on real events, while the thoughts going through Buddha's mind must be the author's conjecture.
To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of "before I was X and now I'm Y" must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be "I-making".

13375: <p>This is from the Theravada Vinaya:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was
previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those
monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal
issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m
happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.”</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd10/en/brahmali" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28946/why-the-view-i-am-the-owner-of-my-karma-not-contradict-anatta">question.</a></p>
<hr />
<p>You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in
Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks,
nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and
teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in
suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded
by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers,
and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in
suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the
group?”</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud4.5/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 4.5</a></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p>Similar to Andrei's answer I note (as fact) that it's a narration of what the Buddha thought, not what he said.</p>
<p>Going even further I might speculate that it's similar to Mother's saying to children, &quot;While sitting in his office, Dad thought, 'Isn't it good that the children are playing <em>quietly</em>, and doing their homework'&quot; -- i.e. it's said to convey a message, needn't be understood (except perhaps by children in question) as a direct and verbatim quote.</p>
<p>Lastly I don't get the impression from the suttas that the Buddha had no preferences. Apparently he preferred what's ethical, skillful, conditions for successful practice, compassionate, etc. (and that doctrine may be easier to understand than a doctrine like, &quot;lol, nothing exists: good, bad, it's all the same...&quot; -- especially for inter-personal relationships).</p>
<p>I wonder whether we're meant to see literally-all the Buddha's actions as motivated only by this kind of preference and this kind of intent -- so much so that any spark of evidence to the contrary (like a preference for avoiding quarrels) is seen as questionable and demanding an explanation.</p>
<p>I suppose it is possible -- that the basis for the preference is that his hanging around while people quarrel would be unskillful.</p>
<p>I'm not sure -- which is why I think this is a good question and which I hope someone answers.</p>
<p>Canonically perhaps there are <em>specific</em> types of preference which an arahant is free from:</p>
<ul>
<li>Sensual desire (kāmacchando)</li>
<li>Desire for existence and rebirth, both material and immaterial (rūparāgo and arūparāgo)</li>
</ul>
<p>To be logical perhaps it would be enough to explain that the preference isn't based on one of these fetters.</p>
 43: <p>Obviously that entire text was authored by someone else, speaking about the Buddha in the third person.</p>
<p>In my understanding, the part about the Buddha leaving the quarreling Sangha is based on real events, while the thoughts going through Buddha's mind must be the author's conjecture.</p>
<p>To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of &quot;before I was X and now I'm Y&quot; must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be &quot;I-making&quot;.</p>
