Ngawang Drolma wrote:
It is advised to analyse the "I" first, and then later one analyses other phenomena in the same way, for example using the "fourfold analysis":
1. Identify object of negation: inherently existent "I"
2. Determine possibilities of how the "I" exists: is it the body, the mind, both or different? (We can say, "I have have a body and a mind", which would indicate that the "I" is something different from the body and the mind, but is that possible?)
3. Is the "I" same as body and/or mind?
4. Is the "I" other than body and mind?
"While you are meditating there is an "I" (representing the Self) which appears to exist from its own side. Right on top of that think, 'the I is merely labelled'. Just meditate on the meaning of the I being merely labelled. I is a name; a name does not exist from its own side, a name is given, imputed by the mind. We can completely agree with that. This I is merely labelled; concentrate on just that. Try to feel that. This automatically eliminates eternalism, the view of a truly existent I."
Lama Zopa Rinpoche
An alternative may be the pith instructions given by the Buddha.
The Buddha completely negates the "I" through uncovering how it is: There are only the aggregates.
So the Buddha uses an affirming negation: No "I" at all but only aggregates. The later can be directly perceived and discerned through meditation whereas the "I" is thought only and is completely unfindable.
If seen from this perspective Lama Zopa Rinpoche advice raises the question: "How can an 'inherently existent "I"' be identified if even no 'mere I' can be found"? To answer I guess one needs additional advice from a teacher experienced in Lama Zopa's approach.
If no teacher is available then one should try for oneself what approach works better ... after having generated bodhicitta!