I would like to hear more acknowledgment that what she says might be wrong on some points. I think she is less likely to give the impression that she thinks she is infallible than some of her students do. Not thinking of Robert there, actually...
As I have said before, I have only briefly met some of the students, but my impression was similar to Ancient Buddhism, and Kusota. I was quite surprised that the whole tone of the conversation from some of the students (not Robert...) was that I should be defending myself, rather than having any sort of mutual dialog.
Of course, that seems to be the particular procedure that they have developed, and one could argue that if one chooses to turn up, that's what one is buying into, just as if one chooses to turn up to a meditation session one should expect to be sitting and walking, not discussing cittas over a cup of tea.
One could argue that the sort of questioning of assumptions that the Sujin approach involves could also be seen in a similar light to Sayadaw U Tajaniya's http://sayadawutejaniya.org/
approach, which seems to involve a lot of questioning of what exactly one is doing, and why.
phil wrote: But thanks to having listened to her I can also see how much of what I hear from modern teachers is deviating from a strict adherence to the tipitika. I think that's especially true if one values Abhidhamma and its commentaries which I do. If one rejects or relegates them to a lower place then I guess one can say that what she is saying is not canonical. But I'm not so keen on debates so I'll stop there.
Personally, I never cease to be amazed by the implication I see in some posts that the ancient commentaries have completely misunderstood the Dhamma, with little or no attempt to actually engage with them. The poster's favourite modern commentator(s) of the moment are then wheeled out as representing the correct interpretation. It seems to be a strangely contradictory attitude that the ancients who preserved the texts, the lineage, and the practice that enables us to have access to the Dhamma today can be summarily written off as bumbling incompetents. I certainly value modern scholarship and teachers, and would not have made any progress in understanding the Dhamma without it. But "scholarship" that arbitrarily dismisses such important sources of interpretation and practical experience doesn't impress me very much.