Altough buddhism does a good job showing there is no such thing as a homunculus/controler self, i don't think it succeeds at showing there is no-self at all.
The minimal-self (by philosopher Zahavi) survives to the buddhist via-negativa imho " In several books and articles, Zahavi has defended the existence and significance of pre-reflective self-consciousness, and argued in favor of the idea that our experiential life is characterized by a form of self-consciousness that is more primitive and more fundamental than the reflective form of self-consciousness that one finds in various kinds of introspection. More generally speaking, Zahavi has spoken out against different reductionist approaches to consciousness, and insisted on the theoretical significance of subjectivity and the first-person perspective. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Zahavi#Pre-reflective_self-consciousness_and_the_minimal_self
It's nothing but the "meeness", first-personal "experiencing" of experience itself.
And if you exclude any self, the path of buddhism itself doesn't make any sense. Why would i go to such extreme lengths engaging in practices and studies to liberate another momentary self that will rise another second from now but won't be me ? Who makes the insight that there is no-self ? Who is liberated ? Sutras like the diamond sutras make some attempt to answer those paradoxes, but the attempt is unsuccessful IMHO.