Thinking about skillful questions

I was inspired to start reading a book again, Skill in Questions, written by a modern-day monk. At one level it’s about Buddhism but also–as the subtitle says–“How the Buddha Taught.” And since the Buddha taught through questions and answers, the book lays out a systematic method for answering questions.

I’m reading the book with writing in mind. My goal isn’t enlightenment (maybe it should be.) Instead, I’m trying to learn how to write fiction, and I want to write articles for other writers that share the writing strategies I learn. I want to answer their questions, and mine.

I’m trying to discover the path to better writing, and to share that path with other writers.

According to the book there are four types of questions.

• Questions that deserve a categorical answer. These categorical answers are always true, always beneficial, and always timely. If someone asks this kind of question, the answer is “do this” or “don’t do that.”
• Questions that deserve an analytical answer. These analytical answers require a bit more nuance. The answer is, “it depends.”
• Questions that deserve cross-questioning before answering. The cross-questioning draws knowledge out of the questioner to better define the question or provide the answer from their own lips. Especially useful when questioners are skeptical or antagonistic.
• Questions that deserve to be put aside. These questions are framed poorly. Answers to these questions are immaterial to the goal of enlightenment better writing, in my case.

The Buddha gave categorical answers to only a few questions. Most of the time his answers were tailored to the audience and situation. The purpose of the answers was always to help his listeners onto the path to enlightenment. And to that end his answers were rhetorical, not dialectic. His words were meant to change minds.

In one scene the Buddha and his disciples are sitting in a forest and he picks up a few leaves. He asks which are more numerous, the leaves in his hand or the leaves in the canopy above their heads.

The monks say, “Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous.”

The Buddha then tells them that the leaves in his hand are the truths he has shared with them all, his teachings. The leaves above their heads are all the truths he knows that he has not shared, because they would not help anyone on the path to enlightenment.

Is it possible to apply this ruthless regulation to my own questions and answers? To only write what is useful? To filter every question into one of those four categories? To set aside questions that won’t help anyone? To know my audience well enough to know how to answer their questions? To only provide answers that will change their minds and help them write more skillfully?