The term ‘origin’ occupies a peculiarly contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as epistemological criterion, ontological ground, and mythic category. William James exposes the logical circularity of invoking origin as a test for truth, cataloguing the diverse warrants — intuition, apostolic succession, supernatural revelation — by which competing traditions claim priority. Mircea Eliade reframes origin cosmologically: the time of origins is paradigmatic time, with the cosmogony serving as the model for every act of creation and renewal; to return to origin is to restore potency. Derrida, engaging Valéry, radicalises the instability of the concept itself: the source or origin cannot be reassembled into any originary unity and perpetually defers itself in time. Karen King, analysing Gnostic scholarship, demonstrates how genealogical arguments about origin — Jewish versus Christian — function rhetorically to privilege certain materials and subordinate others, revealing origin-claims as instruments of polemic rather than neutral historiography. The I Ching lexicon grounds origin (Tzu) as intrinsic selfhood and causative source, linking cosmological beginning to personal ground. Von Franz, working within Jungian mythological analysis, situates questions of origin at the boundary of conscious knowledge, the threshold where archetypal images such as the uroboros emerge. Taken together, these positions reveal origin as an axis on which cosmological, psychological, theological, and deconstructive concerns converge — never simply a beginning, always a site of power.