Hi, Robin,
I don't know how nor I am qualified to answer these specific questions, but I can surely relate to your case. I also struggled when I came to this forum a year or so ago with a mostly Mahayana background and encountering Theravada (Vipassana) and Actualism. It was difficult to see the differences between all the practices, so let me share one personal point important in my development, in case it's of use to you to clarify some differences in approach.
After reading the Actual Freedom Trust website, I decided to go with Actualism, but kept reading every thread of this category in the DhO. Eventually, I understood one of the key differences
illustrated by Tarin a long time ago:
Can you see the difference between these lines of questioning: 'who is afraid?/who is having this experience of i am afraid?' and 'what is fear?/what is this i that am afraid?' and if so, can you see that just as the inquiry is different, so might the findings and result be different?
what the former has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid - there is only Awareness itself, manifesting as this world, this human, this situation, this fear.
what the latter has led me to: no 'person' who is afraid, because no fear.
This is supported by some of the original sources of both methods:
The Buddha on self (and no-self):
"Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)
[...]
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)
And Richard:
Sentient beings (...) are born with a rudimentary self. (Which is a non-verbal awareness of bodily self as distinct from other bodies and the environment at large ... this can be observed in animals). Blind nature equips sentient beings with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... as basic survival instincts. These passions can be observed in animal infants ... and in human babies before they can think and talk. Thus malice and sorrow are intrinsic and not dependent upon conditioning. (These kind of things can be seen in the comfort of your own living-room via those fascinating National Geographic videos of the apes. These animals display passions and behaviour that is almost uncanny in their – albeit very basic – similarity to the human species.)
Because humans can both feel and think and communicate their feeling-fed thoughts to other humans via language they can ruminate – as distinct from animals – upon the results of letting the instincts run free. Whereupon the infant’s rudimentary and passionate non-verbal self is persuaded, through reward and punishment and precept and example, to take on a socially-responsible identity known as a conscience ... in order to control the socially-wayward rudimentary self the baby was born with. By and large this is usually fairly well established by somewhere around the age of seven years ... according to those who study these things. One has been inculcated with the values of the particular culture one was born into and has both a feeling apprehension and a mental knowledge of what is decreed to be ‘Right and Wrong’.
[...]
Concomitant with this socialising process, a sense of identity as a personal ‘I’ percolates through feeling-backed thoughts as the rudimentary self asserts itself as a passionate ego by about age two years ... according to those who study these things. This is a naturally-occurring process in response to the demands of the environment ... natural insofar as the instincts are natural. This ego ‘I’ arises, out of the contradictory savagery and tenderness of the soul ‘me’ – the core of ‘being’ – which is born of the rudimentary self of the instinctual passions, in a vain attempt to steer the ship forcefully by infiltrating and arrogating the very necessary will. (Will is the operative thought function of the bodily consciousness). This makes the will’s otherwise smooth functioning problematic ... according to Richard who studied these things experientially.
It is this ego ‘I’ that is the illusion
[...]
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not ‘permanently disappear the ‘I’ and the ‘me’’ ... it was the identity that did all the work. Who you think and feel and instinctively ‘know’ yourself to be has a job to do: When ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.
[...]
Thus it is ‘I’ that is responsible for an action that results ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ that is the cause of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself ... now. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already here ... it is always now. ‘I’ was merely standing in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent.
While Buddha does not differentiate (at least in this sutta) between ego and soul, and see the whole self-package as illusory, Richard seems to acknowledge and embrace a core and very real self (soul), which then creates the ego.
This has a crucial consequence: The Buddha says "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self." to both ego (the thinker) and soul (the feeler), while
Richard says ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’" and it's "always ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment", so one can take control over oneself and guide every part of the self towards extinction. This is why sincerity is of such importance in the actualist practice: because one has to be convinced (with every fiber of that self) to do the job.
This factor apparently guides to pretty different results: Buddhism (practiced the way cited in this sutta) may lead to an awareness that transcends suffering and Actualism may lead to the extirpation of the whole self from its roots, which stops the rising of all suffering.
As you noted, the question HAIETMOBA is powerful because not only diagnoses the quality of the moment's perception but also has the immediate intention (according to the Actualism method) to do something about it: to clearly see which factors are obstructing it and how it can be improved in this precise moment.
Now, with this I'm not saying that there are no coincidences between both methods, nor that one is not useful to progress in the other. From my own Buddhist background, I have noted both benefits and traps in relation to my Actualist practice. My aim here is not to create controversy but just to establish the subtle points which can help you (or me, specially in the past) to see the differences. The coincidences and benefits depend on your own experience and analysis.
Here in the DhO, a lot of practitioners benefited from seeing this difference in these aims earlier, and then integrating and "actualizing" their Buddhist methods according to this new vision brought by Actualism. As some of them have said, the importance seems to be in the intent you choose for you and your practice. If you have clarity in your intent and perseverance and sincerity in your practice, then nothing will stop you until you achieve your objective, one way or another.
To quote Tarin again:
with regard to preference or sensibility, what one would find preferable or more sensible depends on one's agenda (the implied reason for one's practice). my agenda is to be deeply and irrefutably at ease all the time, and to do nothing to encourage others to be ill at ease ever (which is already implied by being at ease myself, as i cannot be happy while i am being harmful), which i accomplish, both gradually and immediately, by paying attention to the very 'me' that exists *as* (as opposed to both *having* or *not having*) 'my feelings', and *not* by looking at Awareness, or the ground from which all things arise (or the same by any other name). when carefully considered, which line of inquiry makes sense to you will depend on what yours (your agenda) is.
if i put it this way: is your agenda to be unconcerned with fear, or is it to not be afraid ever again? or put another way: is your agenda to stop being concerned with how you may harm others with harmful intentions and feelings, or to stop having or being those intentions and feelings entirely?
Now ask yourself: "what do I choose?"
Regards,
Felipe
EDIT: I forgot that all that horrible block of text of mine tries to respond this specific doubt of yours:
The thing that really puts me off the AF site is that it seems to say that any kind of Vipassana is actually worse than normal human 'sleep'.
What I am saying here is that you decide if it's worse or better from your own experience. I don't know if Richard is being a reductionist or not; what I believe is that there are certain and tricky aspects to consider if you choose to aim to AF.