What is nagasena’s point above?

Learning Goal: I’m working on a hindi question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
1. What prompted the boy Nachiketa to visit Yama, the god of death, in the story from the Katha Upanishad? What were the three boons that Yama granted Nachiketa? Which of the three boons was the hardest for Yama to grant? and why?
2. In the second valli of the Katha Upanishad (pg. 346, (链接到外部网站。)) Yama says, “Both the better and pleasanter come to a man. Going all around the two, the wise man discriminates. The wise man chooses the better, indeed rather than the pleasanter”- What is the distinction that Yama makes here between better and pleasanter? What is the problem with choosing the pleasant? What do you gather about Yama’s idea of wisdom from the dialogue between Yama and Nachiketa?
3. What is the Milinda-Panha? What is the content of this Buddhist text? And what is the structure of this text? Who was Milinda? When was the Milinda-Panha composed?
4. When Milinda asked Nagasena to introduce himself by asking, “How is your reverence known, and what sir is your name?” Nagasena replied, “O king, I am known as Nagasena, but that is only a designation in common use, for no permanent individual can be found.” (See Debate of King Milinda pdf from Week 3 lessons)
What is Nagasena’s point above? Nagasena then introduces the metaphor of the chariot to explain to Milinda what he means. Was Nagasena’s metaphor of the chariot convincing to you? If so, what was Nagasena’s point? If it was not convincing to you, explain where does the metaphor of the chariot falls short?
5. Literary dialogues often “address what are sometimes called the Big Questions: what is love, truth, art, beauty, evil and death? We are
aware that such questions can never be answered, at least not in any final or definitive sense. But if we wish to experience fully
what it means to be human—then we must continue to ask these questions, not in the expectation of answering them bu tin the conviction that by striving to do so we will better comprehend who we are and what we might achieve” (See pg. 13, On the Function of Dialogues pdf, Week 2): On the basis of the two dialogues of Nachiketa and Nagasena, do you agree with the above statement? Why should literary dialogues be helpful in understanding what it means to be human? Your thoughts?