I'm wondering if the modern interpretation of "papañca" (as "mental proliferation", "prolific conceptualisation"), "sati" (as "objective observation"), and "see things as they are" (as no conceptualization, no mental proliferation) has led to the modern understanding and practice of vipassana.
For the Buddha's teaching on "sati", please see MN 10.
For my understanding of "papañca", please see the following thread:
"The translation of papañca and papañcasaññāsaṅkhā"
For my understanding of "see things as they are" (see things without the seven underlying tendencies/drives -- "Anusayā"), please see:
"The translation of the Buddha's doctrine in MN 18"
Your input has been and will be appreciated. Metta to all!