SuttaCentral
You started to learn dhamma with self view ! You implied once you at the other shore no question will be asked , while you are still at this side of the shore !
You don’t know for sure exactly do you ?!
Sorry to say , You are no different to a parrot in this sense , you can copies every thing without any questions !
I don’t think a parrot will memorise the Sutta.
You are saying all the things in this shore,
You accepted whole thing of the other shore if there is one you thought you knew ! although you knew nothing about it at all ! So, that is guessing !
I appreciate your questions.
I used to ask worse questions than this.
Just check DW.
Actually , There is a video showing a parrot and another kind of bird repeating some dhamma words .
But it won’t be able to answer your questions.
You realise Nibbana when you are on this shore.
I don’t think this is a “bad” question !
Those highly attained in jhāna and learned ascetics also post this question before ! Even this forum and others were also engaging in this type of enquiries !
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
Visuddhimagga XVI
P.S let’s keep the personal attacks off this forum and practice Samma-vaca
According to suttas , there were
" Affirmative " statement and also some vague description !
Is this consider early buddhist text ?
Let me clarify , I just used a Friendly simile not attacking !
Earlier than Bhikkhu Bodhi but not in the tipitika 
It’s commentary still.
I’ve offered many sutta references above. I just included this as it speaks to anatta in relation to Nibanna.
In the Udāna (viii,3 <Ud.80>) nibbāna is spoken of by the Buddha in these terms: Atthi bhikkhave ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam, no ce tam bhikkhave abhavissa ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam na yidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa sankhatassa nissaranam paññāyetha.
(‘There is, monks, a non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined; for if, monks, there were not that non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined, an escape here from the born, become, made, determined, would not be manifest.’)
‘Such a positive assertion of the existence of the Unconditioned’ it is sometimes imply that nibbāna is not simply annihilation.’
Not total extinction !
This is one example .
Do consider again , what we are saying is the hereafter as above mentioned !
If you follow the link I posted upppppp there to Ajahn Brahmali’s comments on amata, you’ll see the udanna quote discussed and the whole thread addresses the questions you have from an EBT scholar perspective.
Now this is a quick fix !
If Ajahn brahmali and others who holds this version of nibbana, that is , no different in the sense it is the total extinction to a so called temporary existence of the 5 aggregates !!!
Because it is an illusion , delusional state of mind think that the 5 aggregates is self and something Real ! Which is not !
No self were annihilated !
Of course , if you say there weren’t any self being annihilated , it is true !
But , just like a piece of stone , you crush it, no more stone exist ! Because only the shape and form changes.
So, in this sense , being a stone is lucky than being a human being or other being !
At least don’t have to go through suffering and miserable life ! Plus have to work very hard to end totally this nonsensical life !
I’m still learning Pāli, but going by Aj. Brahmali’s explanation…
ajātam free from jāta (birth)
** abhūtam** free from bhūta (existance. Pp of bhavati)
** akatam** free from kata (doing. Pp of karoti)
** asankhatam** free from sankhata (causation)
I’m also lost as to how nissaranam paññāyetha is translated in the above.
Especially nissaranam, which I understand as ‘going out’ or ‘destroyed’.
So … destruction of birth, becoming, doing and causes is evident.
If someone more fluent in Pāli can explain that’d be great
My twopence worth is that there’s a rather delicate balance going on in the suttas between eternalism and annihalationism. There’s a degree of wriggle room to stray a little on either side of this balance point. One can find statements in the suttas that could be interpreted (though really not conclusively) to lend some support to either side. However, there are also a lot of statements with the structure of the four-fold negation (the catuṣkoṭi). For example, from AN4.38 :
“And how, bhikkhus, has a bhikkhu dispelled personal truths? Here, whatever ordinary personal truths may be held by ordinary ascetics and brahmins— … ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’—a bhikkhu has discarded and dispelled them all, given them up, rejected them, let go of them, abandoned and relinquished them. It is in this way that a bhikkhu has dispelled personal truths.
The Buddha tends to reject all four possible answers to questions of this type, not answer at all, or think all of the four possibilities are not helpful views. Of course, his motivations for this approach are not always entirely clear (at times one might argue that one’s particular viewpoint, whatever side it veers to, on this question is correct, but the Buddha answering this question at the time would not have been helpful). This is definitely some wriggle room to either side. I’m not sure a definitive answer is to be found in the EBTs. It’s a controversial topic also so probably best not to be too dogmatic on the topic (veering to a limited extent either side may be helpful to particular people, though I guess too far then it’s no longer really Buddhism).
Personally, I just take the catuṣkoṭi stucture at face value. My interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings on a question like: “does a person exist after paranibbana?” would be that all four answers “he continues to exists”, “he does not exist”, “he both exists and does not exist” and “he both does not exist and exists” somehow all do not hold or are inapplicable. It’s a kind of non-answering answer and I can’t say I understand it (presumably I would be enlightened if I did! 
), and it’s not the only reasonable interpretation that can be made from related passages.
Personal truths being self-view.
So we are back to, ‘if there is no permanent self, what is anhialated?’