Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘immanent’ functions as a pivotal philosophical operator, marking the presence of the divine, purposive, or transcendent within the created order rather than beyond it. The term surfaces across several distinct registers. In theologies of the Divine Feminine — as developed by Campbell, Harvey, and Baring — immanence is the counterweight to transcendence: the Mother who is simultaneously the infinite source and totally present in every blade of grass, every particle of matter. To collapse this polarity in either direction is, for these writers, a theological and psychological error. In Aurobindo, the immanent is the cosmic Self as universal Purusha, the silent witness resident in all things, upon whose foundational omnipresence the yogi builds cosmic consciousness. In the phenomenological biology of Jonas, as interpreted by Thompson, ‘immanent purposiveness’ names the constitutive teleology of life itself — purposiveness that belongs to the organization of the organism rather than being imposed from without or deducible from any single part. Louth’s Orthodox theology mobilises the term to describe how transcendent Truth becomes interior in the Godman. Spiegelman’s Jungian usage anchors it to psychological finality — the immanent striving of the psyche toward its own goal. Across all these registers, the term structures the debate between interiority and exteriority, between a cosmos animated from within and one governed from without.