The Buddha wandered as a beggar to spread his message of renunciation. He did not let followers write down his words draw or engrave his image, or exaggerate, romanticize, or deify him. Apparently scholars recorded the numerous Buddha cannons in the second or third century A.D. A lot changed in those 600 or so years of oral record. A personal philosophy became the religion Buddhism, and a man become more than a man—in modern terms the Buddha was most likely an atheist or agnostic. A lot has changed since then too.
So what does Buddhism say? What were the secular teachings of the Buddha? The Buddha reduced his world view to four points: (1) life is suffering (dukha), (2) suffering arises from desire (tanha), (3) eliminate desire and you eliminate the suffering, and (4) live a decent life and meditate to help eliminate desire. Want not, hurt not. This is less religion and more an intellectual pain pill.
The Buddha hammered these points over and over in his recorded conversation or sutras. He refused to get caught up on words, the 'world built up by intellectual distinctions and emotional defilements' as Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki described it
The Buddha was not a fuzzy theorist in a mathematical sense. He wrote no papers on fuzzy sets or systems. But he had the shades-of-grey idea: He tolerated A and not-A. He carefully avoided the artificial bivalence that arises from the negation tern' `not' in natural languages. Hence his famous line: 'The no-mind not-thinks no-thoughts about no-things. The Buddha seems' the first major thinker to reject the black-white world of bivalence altogether. That alone took great insight and detachment and tenaciousness in an age with no formal analysis. He built a personal philosophy atop his rejection of bivalence. Today we in the West associate Buddhism with the big-bellied caricatures of that personal philosophy.
The Buddha refused to let words get in the way of what matters as a living and dying organism. Avoiding black-white boundaries helped one see the connected world more clearly and focus on the lot of man. The quote from Buddha at the start of this chapter continues, `... I have not explained that the world is finite or infinite. And why have I not explained this? Because this profits not, nor has to do with the fundamental of religion, nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation quiescence.'
The Buddha focused on death and the old age and suffering that tend to precede it. There was more of that in his day than in ours and we have other painkillers. But life still ends quickly and badly. The Buddha wins at the boundary.
Q46. . According to the author why the Buddha did not like to get involved in semantic or wordy discussion of abstract questions such as finiteness of the world?
1. The Buddha did not consider such discussion to be relevant for religion.
2. The Buddha knew that such questions did not have clear and categorical answers.
3. Such discussion according to the Buddha did not help to attain cessation from desire and renunciation of passions.
(c) Only 1 and 3
Following the words of the Buddha you have the answer. The Buddha did not associate such issues with fundamentals of religion. 'Thus, (I) is a correct statement. The passage does not mention (II). It is speculative statement so far as the passage is concerned. The prime concern of the Buddha’s world view was how to get deliverance from suffering, which is caused by desires of various kinds. Such issues did not help in getting release from the shackles of desire and hence did not find relevance in the Buddha's philosophical perspectives. Thus, statement (III) is correct