I have attended some retreats under SUT at his centre in Burma. It is true he is, as far as I know, the most explicit about stretching "no control" , and I reckon that he might easily agree with many of Achaan Sujin's points. However, in AS's POV, the very idea of "practice" is somewhat at odds with anattaness. If all dhammas arise because of conditions, how can one predict/expect to have more moments of sati arising during the course of a formal retreat than other moments of daily life? If one equals the intention to have sati with sati itself, isn't it wrong understanding? Putting the intention aside, what is there in a retreat which can create more conditions for sati? Can real sati arise with wrong understanding of its characteristics and conditions?I think that the points that Khun Sujin makes are very important, and worth careful consideration. But, of course, the ideas are not unique to her and her followers. I've heard many meditation teachers discuss this idea of lack of control. Sayadaw U Tejaniya is the most explicit, but almost every teacher I have paid attention to discuss the issue. It's common to hear teachers pointing out that one cannot control one's way into jhana, for example, all one can do is set up conditions
"practice"- bhavana, understood commonly today as applying certain kinds of technique is explained altogether differently by AS. She would ask questions like "Who and what does the practice?", to which the answer will lead to a serious questioning of the idea of someone applying some technique to be what bhavana really means.
We all have learnt about nama and rupa, about citta, cetasikas, but easily forget to see that they arise now at this very moment. A moment of wrong understanding can not lead to a moment of right understanding. Therefore, right understanding must be there at the first place. And it should not be vague but very precise. The thinking that "now I will observe or I will keep mindfulness" is one of the example of wrong view, because it fails to understand sati as anatta.
That's some of the many details that I think make the difference between AS and other teachers, although they all talk about anatta.
Whether one chooses to go to a retreat or to attend Dhamma discussions with AS, it all happens by condition. The thing is not what one should do, because there's no rule, but whether there is right understanding now. Association with the wise and listening to the true Dhamma are two first conditions for panna, but it is true,if one intends to attend to the discussions with the hope for panna to arise, then it won't work. Achaan says it should be the path of detachment and understanding. Actually, she usually strechts again and again the fact that the developing of panna is a extremely long process: it took the Bodhisatta 24 Buddha's sasana since he was first predicted to become a Buddha in the future. It took Ananda 100000 kappa...With that, all idea of trying to attain something simply drops...What I disagree with is the extremes that some of KS's students take this argument to, claiming that any attempt at development is doomed to failure. In my view, visiting KS or discussing Dhamma just as much an attempt at control as attempting to meditate. The KS followers I've talked to object to this argument, but I'm afraid that (despite extensive on-line and off-line discussion) I am unable to understand their explanation of the difference between choosing to meditate, and choosing to read or discuss a Dhamma book. I guess I don't have good enough accumulations...
Best rgds,