As a preface that I hope will not be off-topic: It is very difficult to have this discussion in this particular forum, because this is a specialized forum for Classical Theravada, but you are attempting to discuss one way in which some of that tradition is manifesting itself in the present day. If you wish to try to discredit Goenka, I would argue that this is not the correct forum in which to do so. But of course that is up to the moderators to decide.
Earlier in this thread, you made this statement:
robertk wrote:I believe little can be done to help anyone who thinks they are 'doing' vipassana, the attachment runs too deep usually.
There are several problems with this statement. One is that it ignores the fact tha the term "vipassana" is used to mean more than just one thing. You are correct that "doing" vipassana is not a correct notion if one is using the term "vipassana" in the way that you are using it. However, when one uses the term "vipassana" in the context of what is commonly referred to as "Vipassana Meditation," then it may be correct to discuss whether one is "doing" the technique or not. I hope this response is on-topic in this forum.
Another problem with your statement is that your contention that "little can be done to help" individuals who do this technique because "the attachment runs to deep usually" appears to me to be a cynical disregard for the core teachings of the Buddha that individuals are not beyond hope of making better kamma and practicing the 8fold path, even if they have not perfected sublime right view. Indeed, until we have attained to the fruit of arahantship, we will not have perfect sublime right view. I believe this viewpoint is supported in many teachings, such as for example throughout the Sammaditthi Sutta, and I'm sure you will be more adept than I am in finding more.
Another problem is that you presume to see into the hearts and minds of Vipassana meditators, and to know their kamma. I hope it goes without saying that such a claim contradicts any classical teaching.
robertk wrote:Anyway the comment in my post above about the teacher who claims vipassana is a 'simple mental technique' comes from Goenka. Now if you agree with him please discuss or show evidence from the teachings.
Goenka is using this phrase "simple mental technique" in the context of using the term "vipassana" as it is used when talking about "Vipassana Meditation." Goenka is not describing Vipassana in its classical sense as "a simple mental technique," as you erroneously contend.
I believe the burden is on you, Robert, to show in the teachings where it is prohibited to use the term "Vipassana" in any other way than that which you wish it to be used, namely, as a noun synonymous with true insight.
I have done my best to keep this post on-topic within the framework of this particular forum, and at the same time address some of your comments. My apologies if this post falls short in that regard.