Yeah, I think you're just disagreeing with early Buddhism, and justifying that disagreement by positing a misinterpretation of what that Buddhism's supposed to be about.

What there is in the mind, according to early Buddhists, is the interdependent flow of mental states, not a unifying essence corresponding to the misleading singular term "self." Early Buddhists were radical empiricists like David Hume. Now, maybe that's a misunderstanding, but it's one that's so common among scholars, that the burden of proof would be on you to show that that's what it is.