I’ve studied ACIM off and on for over 20 years. I’ve never exactly been a serious student. But I have noticed that when I work through the ACIM lessons on a regular basis, my life makes far more sense than when I’m not involved in a spiritual study. And after discovering that ACIM fits perfectly with Nietzsche’s three stages (camel, lion, child), I’ve become much more enthusiastic about taking it seriously. Even better, my husband is working his way through the lessons with me this go round. (It took him 20 years to warm up to the idea!!)
I should probably mention that I’m not at all fond of Robert Perry’s “new-age” interpretation of ACIM that presents God as a person without form. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I much prefer the Hebrew notion of God as a verb. Trying to understand God as a formless Person seems to me nothing more than an attempt to put a form around the formless which is part of the incompatibility that was created by trying to merge the ancient Hebrew understanding of God with Western abstract thought in the first place (way back with St. Augustine). It doesn’t transcend the problem “of God”, it simply perpetuates it.
So I suppose I have a bit of a different take on ACIM than many students. I am definitely not an ACIM literalist, nor am I “new age”. I’m much more interested in how ACIM fits with Perennial Philosophy and integral spirituality.
I welcome your thoughts!