The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view.
The modern Vipassana movement started with the renewal of interest in meditative practices in Burma due to the work of Ledi Sayadaw. It spread to the west many due to contact of many westerners with the teaching of Mahasi sayadaw.
Vipassana movement has many lineages with diverse practices some instructions between lineages even contradicting each other. There may even be elements which contradict the teaching in the Tripitaka and commentaries in some practices. Some may slant towards the commentaries more than others. Some may slant towards the Sutta Pitaka more than the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Some are more orthodox than the other which does no have incorrect or inadequate views.
But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice.
The onus is with oneself to study and see what confirms to the original teaching, than others pointing it out in an open forum, as there are reasonable following to may of the lineages.
I personally tried with the New Burmese method and Goenka's method and settled for the latter. You can try it out through a course:
If you want to try out some of the other lineages you can try searching for a course or centre through:
It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living ...
Lineages try to justify their practice in terms of the Tripitaka and commentaries. Some slant more towards commentaries than the others. Some more towards the Suttas than the Abhidhamma. Nearly all of them accept the teaching of the Buddha.
Some lineages do have controversial practices which contradict the teachings but still, they nominally accept the teachings and confirms to reasonable parts of the teachings.
... that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, ...
The Dhamma has the quality of open invitation for others to come and see and to practice for oneself. Dhamma does not have any mysticism about it.
Also, the Dhamma should be validated through experience than just being philosophical tenents.
... bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality.
One's knowledge of the Dhamma should be balanced with the meditative experience. So when one starts one does not need to commit to much other than there is something beneficial in the Dhamma.
As one progresses and the understanding deepens, as more theory gets validated by the practice and experience. This way one can progressively deeper truths and realities.