I just thought to remind some of you to check some new articles written by Ven. Nanamoli whose stand is strongly on phenomenology and discuss the matter in not-so-easy-way.
Regarding the difficulty to understand his texts he argues in one of the comments of one article.
http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/resistance-and-designation/#comment-475… the lack of explanations in my recent essays are intentional; I’m more concerned with presenting things in an opanayiko way, i.e. “leading”, making one see for oneself,—the order of things, their nature—not just accepting it on account of intellectual satisfaction and/or compatibility with the respective views.
That’s why it would be wrong to regard these recent essays as a commentary to Ven. Ñanavira’s writtings. Although they both point at the same things, NoD are slightly more ’explanatory’ or ’informative’, i.e. they are much broader in terms of the context, but they are leading on in a lesser degree. This is really good and useful in the beginning when one is trying understand what needs to be understood and learn how to regard and read the Suttas. Once this is accomplished one has to carry on further and forsake even that “existential” approach one had in the beginning. That’s why I have taken for granted in my writings that the reader is already versed in Ñanavira’s Notes and Letters, which can be considered as a prerequisite for understanding my more recent essays. In other words, whatever I write stands directly upon the way I have understood NoD, but it is not concerned with it (the concern are the Suttas, which were understood through NoD).
Though the difficulty, you might find them as pleasant challenge to your phenomenological observation of the experience. If you have any question for the author, you can let me know since he doesn't use forums.