Why did the Buddha not answer Vacchagotta (SN 44.10), but did answer the monks (MN 140)?

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?