On early Buddhism

[Dhabba]

No worries!
Take care!

[Sunyo]

@Dhabba

No worries!
Take care!

Unless you want to actually respond to my points, of course.

Anyway, I came back to give a further source I just stumbled upon, just for reference. Analayo wrote in The Signless and the Deathless:

“It might not be, and it might not be for me.
It will not be, and it will not be for me!”

[…] The dictum given in the above form apparently presents a reformulation of an aspiration employed by some ancient Indian practitioners who […] seem to pertain to the category of annihilationists […]. The decisive difference, compared to the dictum in the above instruction, is that the annihilationist version reads “I might not be” and “I will not be.” From a Buddhist perspective, there is no self in the first place that needs to be annihilated, therefore what should be annihilated is much rather clinging to self-notions. The successful completion of such annihilation with full awakening also does not require waiting for the time of one’s death. Hence, in the Buddhist version of the dictum, the “I” is dropped and the aspiration becomes simply “it might not be” and “it will not be,” […].