So much food for thought! Having read your response and the Sutta (thanks for sharing) several times, I really do feel as if what I am trying to say is aligned, merely with different words (and, of course, ultimately, words fail us because they are dualistic). Below are two examples.

You say: 'One who has not realised the ultimate truth level might misuse ultimate truth of no self to argue for immortality'; the Sutta says: 'Those who believe that past deeds are the most important thing have no enthusiasm or effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done'. I agree! I see this risk clearly and do not act out of the belief that I have no free will, because I remain unenlightened and thus in the delusion of self and free will. However, ultimately, on a deeper level, I feel I am without self and without free will, merely being consciousness somehow aware of myriad unfolding conditions. It is from this deeper view that I forgive all past wrongdoings - my own and others - and thus respond with compassion and forgiveness to what has already occurred (because it could not have been different; it cannot change - it has already occurred). However, it is not from this deeper view that I plan future actions, because this is a contradiction - 'I' do not exist and do not, in actuality, have control of the future; it will merely unfold (and then be unchangeable). This leads on to the next two quotations below.

You say: 'Until there's no possibility of breaking morality, thus no need for the internal sense of control, but externally, people see you as in control'; the Sutta says: 'When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease'. You may disagree of course, but this to me appears to align with what I am trying to argue: it is only from a state of ignorance that we feel as if 'we' (self) have 'control' (free will); once we are free from this ignorance (Enlightenment), the need for the delusion of self and free will diminishes - we act morally without effort. From this state free from ignorance, however, we would also see that all prior 'effort' was mere illusion - all that in actuality occurred was a flowing of infinitely complex conditions (the whole of existence) from which we are completely inseparable.

I am aware that the Buddha was very practical, which I admire. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can imagine the Buddha arguing that, unless this philosophical speculation is leading to ethical behaviour and away from the three poisons, it is futile. It is reflecting on this - and the fact that words can never describe reality due to their dualistic nature - that I feel that this (very enjoyable) debate can only take us (or me) so far. Again, I really appreciate your input - very impressive, patient and enlightening! Thank you.