The term ‘pure’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along several distinct but related axes, each carrying significant theoretical weight. In the Platonic inheritance — most elaborated in the Philebus and Timaeus — purity denominates a quality of pleasures, knowledge, and forms: ‘true pleasures’ are those ‘unalloyed with pain,’ and ‘pure reason’ asserts its sovereign action by refusing subordination to sensory limitation. This epistemological register links purity to authenticity, unmixedness, and proximity to essence. The I Ching tradition, as rendered through Wang Bi and Liu I-ming, mobilizes purity cosmologically: Qian as ‘Pure Yang’ and Kun as ‘Pure Yin’ articulate the generative polarity underlying all change and transformation. In Aurobindo, purity characterizes the condition of consciousness that has shed mixed or dependent engagement — the ‘pure self-awareness’ dissolved back into pure being — a usage resonant with Govinda’s Tibetan Buddhist formulation of ‘pure, white’ Mirror-like Wisdom in Aksobhya’s field. The alchemical literature invokes the ‘pure Tincture’ as the distillate of transformative work. In pharmacological-clinical contexts (Grof), ‘pure LSD’ marks a methodological control condition. What unifies these deployments is a persistent logic: purity signals the removal of admixture, distortion, or contaminating dependency — whether epistemic, cosmological, psychological, or material — and marks proximity to an originary or essential state.