As per standard abhidammic theory, she teaches “wholes” do not exist; they are concepts (pannatti) and anatta. Likewise, the paramattha dhammas of citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana are also said to be anatta as their impermanence overrides the fact that they exist for a fleeting moment. However, from this the conclusion is drawn that since “I” am only the pancakkhanda and these are selfless ultimate realities, then I cannot will or choose to do anything. Cetana as a cetasika is said to only arise, as with all paramattha dhamma, due to “conditions and accumulations”, a person as anatta cannot will another anatta constituent into being. Kamma as traditionally understood in the Sutta literature is thus negated.
I would like to look at this idea of anatta negating kamma. First let's look at this old thread: Note that Nina van Gorkom is a long time friend of Sujin's and still regularly comes to bangkok (where I live) to discuss Dhamma with Sujin. Nina is also the main translator of Sujin's writings and talks.