Thank you for giving me the last word! 
When you once again bring up the ”I” ”Mine” from the stock phrases of outsider views that are expressed in first person, you not only dodge the actual question (What is the difference between buddhists who reject eternalism and Cessationists?) but also avoid the fact that in The Buddha’s teaching there is no such thing as eternal or annihilation to begin with, in any of the various dimensions.
So keep in mind that from a buddhist point of view there’s no such things as eternity or annihilation - A monk asks how to end the defilements in this present life? (So this is adressed to buddhist monks and strictly for buddhist monks)
The Buddha goes on to teach that some do not regard the khandhas as self but still embrace eternalism with wrong ideas like for instance: ’Nibbāna is the ”true self” etc. (MN1 puts a stop to such wrong ideas)
Then we have those who do not regard the khandhas as self and who rightfully reject eternalism but instead embraces annihilation (mere cessation) - Do you honestly think The Buddha was such a bad teacher and speaker that he in SN 22.81 mentions those who do not see the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism - Then he uses yet another stock phrase formula used by outsiders (what else could he use when there is no such thing as annihilation to begin with in the buddhist teaching?).
Since The Buddha has already declared that these people ”don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self” and reject eternalism you can’t claim that just because the annihilationist formula uses ”I” and ”Mine” that The Buddha is the one making a mistake as a teacher and not the ones he’s talking about, namely ”Cessationists”.
So either The Buddha was a pretty worthless teacher in this sutta for buddhist monks wanting to end the defilements in this very life or maybe, just maybe, those who do not regard the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism have no other option than to embrace annihilation ”mere cessation” (suttas like AN 10.6 and AN 10.7 put a stop to such wrong views).
Strange that you adhere to there being ”buddhist-eternalists” who are wrong but never admit that there are also ”buddhist-annihilationists” who are equally wrong. 
It is impossible to live eternally in any plane of existence, one will eventually die and take rebirth.
It is also impossible to be annihilated/terminated. No matter where or how this ”termination” takes place; be it having the dimension of nothingness as the end goal or Asaññasattāvāso - one is still bound to enter a new existence sooner or later.
I mean it is right there in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta that The buddhist path is beyond both existence (craving for being) and non-existence (craving for extermination).
The whole point of the path is to go beyond all the dimensions and planes in Saṃsāra - that very immersion mentioned in AN 10.6 & AN 10.7, The Unconditioned - Nibbāna, that is beyond all planes of existence.
When I started a thread that there is Nibbāna in the locative case, namely: Nibbānasmiṃ, Nibbānamhi & Nibbāne.
Ven. @Sunyo was quick to dismiss all of it by saying;
But when me and others asked what is incorrect there was no reply…So what is in reality incorrect with Nibbānasmiṃ, Nibbānamhi & Nibbāne?
Still no reply.
I see that you rely heavily on Ven Sunyo’s views and link to his various essays - but despite him being the Pali expert he made grave mistakes with MN 49 (check the thread where I point out all the illogical mistakes). He also forgot that anidassanaṁ is a synonym for Nibbāna.
”It’s good to study a sutta properly before trying to teach others about it.”
That is a contradiction.
You admit in this thread that one can in fact perceive the unconditioned - which happens to be beyond all planes of existence - but you add: only when alive.
But then there can’t be a single person in the whole universe who (ACTUALLY) sees ”final nibbāna as full cessation” Since one can ONLY ”see this” when the body is dead, without any possibility to even share with others about ”seeing final nibbāna as full cessation, there is nothing left, nothing ever-present.”
So those that you refer to are clearly on the wrong path if they ”see final nibbāna as full cessation.” in advance. Because seeing this is, according to your views in the thread, only possible when the body is finally dead and never when alive.
So how can then anyone even know about or have heard about final nibbāna as full cessation? How can someone know this prior to the actual death of the body?
Do you see the contradiction?
Inference will not help you here.
Mere cessation is only a view that arises from not regarding the khandhas as self and ONLY rejecting eternalism.
You constantly bring up The Upanishads:
These so called upanishads are found in all the four vedas. We don’t know when the upanishads were composed but in general: ”The Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts that “document the transition from the archaic ritualism of the Veda into new religious ideas and institutions”
But we do know that in the Nikayas The Buddha only mention 3 vedas, not four.
So maybe the upanishads were added after The Buddha? After all ”The Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic” and The Buddha only mention three vedas.
