user13375: It has been said that the reason the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta:

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”
“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been
siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When
Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I
had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have
been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.
When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had
answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give
rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”
“No, sir.”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’,
Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused,
thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”
SN 44.10

It's also been said that the Buddha did answer the question about what happened to Pukkusāti after a cow killed him even though it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha:

But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.
Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”
“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”
MN 140

This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but did answer the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

user13709: The questions are similar in that the existence of self appears to be discussed.
In Vacchagotta's question, a nonsensical demand about the question of existence of self is simply ignored as nonsense.
However, in the case of the monks, they are simply using the convention "he" as a proxy for "that aggregate known as Pukkusāti". And the question is about kamma, not self. The monks are not asserting Pukkusāti's literal existence any more than saying "what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?" Indeed, if the monks had asked "where has Vacchagotta been reborn in the next life?", the answer might not be so bright.  Vacchagotta's rebirth might be a bit like the plastics in the ocean. Not extinguished, entangled in notions of a self.

13375: <p>It has been said that the reason the Buddha <em>did not answer</em> Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine &amp; terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”</p>
<p>“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been
siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When
Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I
had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have
been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.</p>
<p>When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had
answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give
rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”</p>
<p>“No, sir.”</p>
<p>“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’,
Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused,
thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 44.10</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's also been said that the Buddha <em>did answer</em> the question about what happened to Pukkusāti <em>after</em> a cow killed him <em>even though</em> it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine &amp; terminology of the Buddha:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.</p>
<p>Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. <strong>Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”</strong></p>
<p>“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 140</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha <em>did not answer</em> Vacchagotta, but <em>did answer</em> the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?</p>
 13709: <p>The questions are similar in that the existence of self <em>appears</em> to be discussed.</p>
<p>In Vacchagotta's question, a nonsensical demand about the question of existence of self is simply ignored as nonsense.</p>
<p>However, in the case of the monks, they are simply using the convention &quot;he&quot; as a proxy for &quot;that aggregate known as Pukkusāti&quot;. And the question is about kamma, not self. The monks are not asserting Pukkusāti's literal existence any more than saying &quot;what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?&quot; Indeed, if the monks had asked &quot;where has Vacchagotta been reborn in the next life?&quot;, the answer might not be so bright.  Vacchagotta's rebirth might be a bit like the plastics in the ocean. Not extinguished, entangled in notions of a self.</p>
