(This thread was linked elsewhere. I didn’t read most it. Apologies! I’m just going to be arrogant and assume my line of reasoning hasn’t been shared yet! 
)
I think Malavaro’s arguments are very astute and valid. “The Tathagata does not exist after death” is true, so why would the Buddha reject it? We could assume all sorts of reasons, but if you ask me, the confusion is simply based on an over-literal translation.
This is how I translate it in SN44.1:
‘After death a Truthfinder (Tathagata) still exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder both still exists and no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder neither still exists nor no longer exists’ does not apply.
Instead of “the Truthfinder does not exist” I have “the Truthfinder no longer exists”, though somewhat more literal would have been “the Truthfinder will not exist” (meaning “will no longer exist”). This is valid, because the Pali present tense can carry a future tense meaning, like it quite obviously does in this case, as we’re talking about “after death”.
I think this resolves all the confusion. If not, @UpasakaMalavaro, let me know and I’ll happily explain in more detail. But I assume you get the subtle but important difference straight away.
Thanks for raising this. Until I was able to read it in Pali, it confused the heck out of me too!
If not yet convinced about my future tense reading, compare also to the Yamaka sutta (SN22.85):
“So, Venerable Yamaka, since you cannot even find a Truthfinder to actually exist in the present life, was it proper for you to say: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant without defilements is destroyed and eradicated when his body breaks down, and after death he is no more’?”
Here “eradicated when his body breaks down” clearly means “After death a Truthfinder will not [i.e. no longer] exist”, instead of “does not exist”.
By the way, noticed how the English also uses the present tense “is” in “after death he is no more”?! While the meaning is clearly the future? You probably didn’t until I pointed it out. Now, that’s how the Pali present tense works too. But if it’s literally translated into English this gets lost.
A couple years ago I suggested this line of translation to Ajahn @Sujato when proofreading his translations, but he hasn’t picked up on it. (He said he’ll reconsider, though. So let’s hope!)
…
Spending too much time here! Well, can’t meet lay people now because of Covid, so I hope to teach at least a little bit like this… Let me know if it is helpful at all or not. 