A clear definition of what is not my self is given in the Saḷāyatana Saṃyutta (SN 35), as well as in the Khandha Saṃyutta (SN 22).
Being dispationate about the fields of sensory experience (ayatana), as the eye, the ear, etc. - as well as laying the burden down, as far as the khandhas are concerned, is the result of understanding that all these are not my self.
“Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it has come to be with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this Iam not, this is not my self.’
“The ear is impermanent… (viz. the internal ayatanani)
“Cakkhuṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ. Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā. Yadanattā taṃ 'netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya
Impermanent and suffering.
Idem for form, sound, etc. (external ayatanani).
“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards the eye, revulsion towards the ear,… revulsion towards the mind. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
See SN35.1 to 12
Also SN 22.9 to 22 deal in the same way, with the clinging khandhas.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the burden?
It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging.
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhāro?
Pañcupādānakkhandhā tissa vacanīyaṃ.
“The five aggregates are truly burdens,
The burden-carrier is the person.
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Laying the burden down is blissful.
Bhārā have pañcakkhandhā,
bhārahāro ca puggalo;
Bhārādānaṃ dukhaṃ loke,
This sounds pretty clear.
Note that SA 195, the parallel to SN 35.1-12, or more properly the parallel to SN 35.1-9, does not include the external ayatanani (viz. form, sight, etc.)
SN 22.22 has a perfect parallel in SA 73.
And SA 73 is a pretty good read (particularly the end).
Is there a Self/self that is not impermanent and not suffering, (and that is “mine”) - is somewhat not relevant in the first place. What (in the" second place" [after death],) is the exact nature of that Self/"self, is an insane endeavour.
Asankhata & Avyakata, I presume.
Get (first) out of salayatana (eye and form, ear and sound, etc.) [aka, kama loka] - that is what is relevant.
And that is what no one, (if for some equivocal few,) seem to agree here.
Bad faith, I suppose.
Also read Chandogya Upanishad 8, section 7 to 12, for some relevant context.