14 questions left unanswered I am questioning myself and my practice of answering questions and was stopped by the following website.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/interferences/fourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html


  There are fourteen unspecified points (lung-du ma-bstan-pa bcu-bzhi),
  which are points about which Buddha did not specify an answer when
  asked. Often this set of fourteen is referred to as the “fourteen
  questions to which Buddha remained silent.” 
  
  The Mahayana Version To those who believe in a true findably existent
  “me” or “self” (bdag, Skt. atman) and a true findably existent
  universe, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the “I” or the
  “self” and the universe:
  
  eternal, not eternal, since they undergo gross impermanence at the
  time of their destruction, as both, in the sense that some beings and
  their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are
  eternal; while all else, such as his creations, are not eternal and
  end at the time of their destruction, neither, since it is impossible
  to  know?  Are “I’s” or “selves” and the universe:
  
  finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, in the sense that limited
  beings (sentient beings) are infinite in number, but the universe is
  finite in size, neither, since it is impossible to know?  Does the “I”
  or the “self” of a Buddha:
  
  continue to exist after death, not continue after death, both, in the
  sense that the body does not continue, but the life-force (srog) does,
  neither?  Buddha did not answer these because there is no such thing
  as a true findably existent “me” or “ self” for either limited beings
  (sentient beings) or a Buddha, and no such thing as a true findably
  existent universe. Therefore, there can be no question whether such
  things are eternal or not eternal, or finite or infinite. It is like
  asking do rabbit-horns, turtle-hair or chicken-lips last forever or
  only a limited time. If Buddha said the “me,” and so on are eternal,
  these people would fall to the position of eternalism. If he said they
  are not eternal, they would fall to the position of nihilism, since
  they would not understand his answer. Therefore, it was more skillful
  not to specify an answer at all. 
  
  To those who believe in a true findably existent body and life-force,
  Buddha did not answer when they asked are the body and life-force:
  
  the same entity, totally separate and different entities?  He remained
  silent for a similar reason, since they would only misunderstand
  anything he said.


The question is in 2 parts, but they are really part of the same question of how questions and answers benefit our practice.

A) Do you agree that the Buddha did not address these points in his sermons?

(B) How does this questioning and answering aid our practice that moves toward awakening and what benefit can be derived from asking the type of questions we ask and answering the type of questions we answer?
I think the answer is in the article. They were not answered because they were formulated around finding the consequences of premises which are not true, the findably existent self or universe.

There is at best no sense in answering them "I believe the moon to be made of cheese: is it Wensleydale or Gorgonzola?"; more likely they would lead to misunderstandings and cause suffering.