Form is not worth considering as self but is it worth considering as non-self? Namo Buddhaya.

This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
But can we identify Form as non-self ?
This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. But can we identify Form as non-self ?

&quot;Not-self&quot; (Anatta), is together with Anicca and Dukkha, known as the Three Characteristics of Existence (of Conditioned Phenomena).
The Five Aggregates, wherein Rupa (material form, physical phenomena) is listed, are subject to the Three Characteristics of Existence.
The uncontrollability of the Aggregates is experientially visible through direct seeing, ie. the practice of Vipassana Meditation. Here it can be seen with ones own eyes, how the Form-aggregate arises and ceases incessantly, based on impersonal causes and conditions.
In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the Buddha explains how form can be regarded as not-self:

&quot;... Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus...&quot;
&quot;...What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir...”
-- SN 22.59