I guess the question would be: if that framework were the same as what’s presented on the AFT site, then there would be no difference to follow one or the other.
So, what are the differences? Can you explicitly list them or describe them?
Then you will know what things you have to change to revert back to following what’s presented on the AFT site.
As a high-level idea only, I think simple actualism removes or avoids talking about a lot of what Srinath called Actualism and the Weird.
Yet that so-called “weird” is inseparable from the rest, and directly follows from what a full actual freedom is, entails, and means.
By avoiding that perhaps one is avoiding going precisely towards where Richard & Vineeto are, and thus making the journey harder for themselves than it already is (as it is obviously a tricky thing to extricate oneself from the human condition).
Srinath wrote to Vineeto:
My MO is to investigate this remnant ‘me’ and get to know how it operates, seeing how much of it can be set aside gradually – keeping my new lodestone in mind i.e. that ambrosial, super-fresh, vast, still, openness of the infinitude of the universe that is the source of all that is. Right now the process seems to be a dance between allowing infinitude and exploring the ‘brake’ that is ‘the guardian’ or something similar to that. [emphasis added]
V List D Alan
I posit that, just at a surface level (without having re-read the Simple Actualism site) that which is bolded there, is what is missing or absent from “Simple/Sandpit Actualism”.
Yet that is the core and source of it all!
Ha and my guess is on the right track, the whole site contains just one instance of the word “infinitude”, and in a quote from Richard:
Simple Actualism may thus be a reflection of Srinath’s braking/turning away from that infinitude.