This "breaking experience down into simpler bits" isn't a two truth notion per se. You're a pretty smart fellow Mike.
I find it kinda hard to believe that you don't understand these distinctions, and don't see the problems and limitations of the commentarial two truth theory?
Well, that's why I'm trying to discuss some of these ideas without recourse to the commentaries, and therefore the standard objections.
Some objections to modern "vipassana" approaches (Mahasi, Goenka, etc) seem to me to revolve around the fact that they make use of Commentarial terminology. Therefore they are infected by these two-truth ideas. Therefore they are problematic.
So if you think that:
"breaking experience down into simpler bits" isn't a two truth notion
then that's fine with me.
My reading of Ven Nanananda's discussions of bhavana is that he does
seem to advocate beginning by "breaking experience down into simpler bits", just as in approaches I am familiar with. However, he objects to taking those "simpler bits" to be "ultimate". And he has his own interpretation of how the insights will unfold.
E.g. in Seeing Through, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katukurund ... anda_Thera
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64230534/Bhik ... Meditation
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;