Chapter 17 sets out the historical factors behind the differing conceptions in India and Greece of the interrelation of universe with inner self and the absence from Greece of karma.

Chapter 6 describes the construction of the unified inner self and its relation to the universe. A movement from diversity (inner, cosmic and political) to wholeness is found in the mythic-ritual complex of both cultures, notably in the strikingly similar myths of Prajapati and Dionysos. The wholeness of the inner self correlates with the wholeness of the world obtained by sacrifice. The formation of the unified inner self (atman) as cosmogony is described in the opening of the B?hadara?yaka Upani?ad. The relation of atman to other candidates for the role of unified inner self, prana and manas, is described.

Chapter 12 classifies Greek monism with the same four categories as used for India, and describes the transition – also found in India – from reciprocity to monism, which is closely associated with the new inner self. The element of fire in universe and inner self allows cross-cultural comparison that includes Zoroastrianism and Buddhism.

Chapter 4 concerns the construction of the inner self in the Rigveda and in Homer. The comprehensive, bounded inner self with which we are familiar, but which is in fact given to us not by nature but as a construction found in some societies but not in others, is found neither in Homer nor in the Rigveda. Its absence can be correlated with polytheist reciprocity, whereas its subsequent development (i.e. of atman and psuche) can be correlated with various kinds of monism, of which there are a very few slight occurrences in the latest section of the Rigveda. The explanation I will give of these developments requires a preliminary description here of the phenomena of cosmisation (cosmic projection) and interiorisation (introjection).