Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘East’ operates simultaneously as cardinal direction, cosmological symbol, cultural counterpoint, and psychological orientation. The term carries at least four distinct registers that often interpenetrate. First, as sacred direction: John of Damascus grounds the liturgical imperative to face east in the theology of Christ as Dayspring and in the eastward situation of Eden, making the direction itself a theological argument about origin and return. Second, as cosmological and divinatory coordinate: the I Ching traditions (Wilhelm, Huang, Ritsema-Karcher) assign East to Spring, to Thunder, to the yang quality, and to new germination — a system in which direction encodes time, energy-phase, and moral valence. Third, as civilizational polarity: the East-West dyad dominates Clarke’s critical examination of Jung, Jonas’s history of Gnosticism, Campbell’s comparative mythology, and Rudhyar’s astrological philosophy. Here East functions as the originary source of knowledge (Rudhyar), as the suppressed cultural underworld of Hellenism (Jonas), or as the psychological ‘other’ onto which the West projects its shadow (Clarke on Jung). Fourth, as depth-psychological resource and danger: Jung, Epstein, and Peterson treat engagement with Eastern thought as both therapeutic possibility and assimilative risk. The tensions among these registers — between sacred geography, divinatory system, civilizational myth, and depth-psychological method — make ‘East’ one of the most contested orienting concepts in the library.