What are examples of identity-view? Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is the first of the ten fetters.
The &quot;eradication&quot; of identity-view is important towards enlightenment.
Presumably, &quot;eradication of identity-view&quot; is more than simply claiming, &quot;Yes, there's no self anywhere!!&quot;
So, how should one understand what &quot;identity-view&quot; is, and whether it's eradicated?
If &quot;eradication&quot; of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)?
Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated?
Is &quot;eradication of identity-view&quot; synonymous with having no habits?
Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic?
If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones!

Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that Culavedalla Sutta for example seems to describe it:

As he was sitting there he said to her, &quot;'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?&quot;
&quot;There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.&quot;

Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, &quot;No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the fourth fetter&quot;?
Also, questions about the self come with a warning: &quot;This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc.&quot; -- so I have not been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?
Well, here's my take on Identity view.  I think it's relatively compatible with the Sutras, but should not be considered an exposition of them. 

First, what is this "self"?  One answer is that it's your reaction when contemplating the following questions...

1. When you feel pride in an accomplishment, what is the recipient of this pride?
2. When you feel offended at being insulted, what was insulted?
3. Who is the "star" of your narrative?
4. What is the agent that wills and acts and controls thought?


Identity views cause pain since this self is something that can come under attack and hence becomes a source of worry and regret (see #3) and conflict (see #2).  Further, suffering continues because experience becomes filtered and emotionally laden because of how it's seen to relate to this "self" (see #3). Then there's the fact that desires are in reference to a "self" -- when you seek desires, you seek to feed this "self".

So the goal is to suspend belief in a self.  This doesn't mean claiming it doesn't exist -- but rather, letting all beliefs about it go.  That's the only way the apparently contradictory claims of the Sutras (and the various view fetters) make sense to me. 

You suspend these beliefs by inquiring into the nature of this self.  Be mindful and present to your experience, especially when confronted with 1-4, and inquire deeply into this "self" that seems to present itself.  During meditation (or in quieter times) try to focus on this sense of "I" and go through the Skhandas to see if you can find any self there.  You can even look at it logically; if the self is "you", the thing behind your consciousness (not that I'm claiming it is), then how can you be aware of it, as to be aware of anything means its an object of consciousness and not the subject?

As for Western approaches to the self, I think the most systematic treatment is Derek Parfitt.

After that, there's David Hume.  Here's a PDF outlining his identity views.

And here's a passage from Hume (from here) about his views on a self.  This may make a good object for meditation, and the relationship to Skhandas is clear:


  For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I
  always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or
  cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can
  catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe
  any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any
  time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may
  truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions remov’d by
  death, and cou’d I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor
  hate after the dissolution of my body, I shou’d be entirely
  annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a
  perfect non-entity. If any one upon serious and unprejudic’d
  reflexion, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess
  I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may
  be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in
  this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and
  continu’d, which he calls himself; tho’ I am certain there is no such
  principle in me… But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I
  may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing
  but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed
  each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux
  and movement.