To resume: (see also here)
Buddha would have said something like this to an Upaniṣadic philosopher, I suppose:
With what you, Upanishadic folks, call the ubiquitous and pervasive self, my satta as such, with its mano, would be able to control the impermanent and painful nature (dukkha) of the external khandhas, and make it permanent and not suffering - that is to say “blissful” (the utmost nature of self - anandamaya atman ).
But you can’t do that, even if you desire so."
In other words the “I” (which in your views is also self), with all the will it has with its mano, is not able to change the impermanent nature of dhammas in general; such as making this inherent dukkha in dhammas, an intrinsically blissful self, as the latter is supposed to be.
So, not only the nature of the external khandhas are not self (not blissful) - but the next step in paṭiccasamuppāda, that could make satta an “I” (as a blissful self,) - with all the volition of its mano - would not be able to make these khandhas blissful.
So control here is to be able to make dhammas blissful (viz. “self”).
But “self” is bliss; not control.
Mano is control.
And dhammas are not bliss (because of their impermanence); therefore they are all ānatta (not-self/no-self/devoid-of-self - not-bliss/no-bliss/devoid-of-bliss - whatever you want).
That’s my (crazy) take; from the reading of the Vedas and the Suttas/Sutras. 
That’s all folks! - oops! - brothers!.