There isn’t a difference between his exegesis and the early texts, and we do see this talk there. For example, the first fetter to be given up is that of substantial existence.
On another note, if you think final Nibbana is total nothingness then you are engaging in the same kind of thought as that of self views. It’s only when you make something real that you can say such things. For the Annihilationist there really is something and then it is not. For the Eternalist there really is something and it always is. Reification is the problem. Stop doing that, and you won’t think nibbana is total nothingness or really something. Instead dhammas rise and cease, and in that there is no rising or ceasing.
“Whoever says that the signs /
arising from name-and-form do truly exist,
know that this person /
is on the road of death.Perceiving in name-and-form /
emptiness and absence of self-nature
this is called to respect the Buddhas /
for ever free from the realms of existence.”
SA 217