The term ‘Heaven’ in the depth-psychology and comparative-religion corpus admits of no single referent; it functions simultaneously as cosmological structure, psychological principle, ethical imperative, and inner state. In the Taoist I Ching traditions — represented by Liu I-ming and Thomas Cleary — Heaven designates pure yang, the primordial ordering principle of the universe whose design the cultivated mind must reflect and obey; ‘ascending to heaven in broad daylight’ is explicitly decoded as an expression for the realization of total freedom, not a literal topography. Paracelsus, as read by Jung, interiorizes Heaven entirely: ‘heaven is man and man is heaven,’ each human body carrying its own complete celestial imprint. John of Damascus preserves the cosmological stratification — two, three, or seven heavens — while anchoring angels, their dwelling-place, to a hierarchically ordered divine proximity. Swedenborg, cited by Zimmer, anthropomorphizes Heaven as one vast collective man governed as a unity. The Philokalia tradition converts Heaven into an ethical-ascetic interior: ‘a life lived virtuously is the kingdom of heaven.’ Campbell frames Heaven comparatively, noting how heavens and purgatories function across traditions as stages of post-mortem psychological purging. These divergent construals — cosmic, interior, ethical, visionary — constitute the central tension the concordance must navigate.