The relationship of anger to attack is obvious, but the relationship of anger to fear is not always so apparent.
Anger always involves projection of separation, which must ultimately be accepted as one's own responsibility, rather than being blamed on others.
Anger cannot occur unless you believe that you have been attacked, that your attack is justified in return, and that you are in no way responsible for it.
Given these three wholly irrational premises, the equally irrational conclusion that a brother is worthy of attack rather than of love must follow.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion?
The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
You cannot be attacked, attack has no justification, and you are responsible for what you believe.
You have been asked to take me as your model for learning, since an extreme example is a particularly helpful learning device.
Everyone teaches, and teaches all the time.
This is a responsibility you inevitably assume the moment you accept any premise at all, and no one can organize his life without some thought system.
Once you have developed a thought system of any kind, you live by it and teach it.
Your capacity for allegiance to a thought system may be misplaced, but it is still a form of faith and can be redirected.