Introduction
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.