Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘transcendent immanent’ names a constitutive tension — and, for several thinkers, its resolution — at the heart of religious experience, symbolic life, and the structure of ultimate reality. The concept refuses any clean theological partition: the divine ground is simultaneously beyond all phenomenal forms and wholly present within them. Campbell and Harvey articulate this most explicitly in relation to the Hindu Goddess tradition, where the Mother is simultaneously ‘infinitely beyond’ creation and ‘totally immanent in her own creation,’ and where collapsing the dyad into either pure transcendence or pure immanence is treated as a failure of spiritual imagination. Aurobindo approaches the same structure from the integral yoga tradition, insisting that the World-Transcendent ‘embraces the universe, is one with it and does not exclude it,’ so that individual, cosmos, and Absolute form a non-exclusive hierarchy. Campbell’s comparative mythology treats transcendent-immanent unity as the deepest grammar of symbolism itself, wherein ‘all personifications, forms, acts, and experiences make manifest the one transcendent-immanent mystery.’ Jung introduces a psychological register, marking the marriage quaternio as ‘half immanent and half transcendent,’ while Simondon offers a philosophical-ontological critique, arguing that both transcendence and immanence are incomplete symbols produced by individuation and that authentic first philosophy must think what precedes their divergence. The term thus functions as a diagnostic of cosmological adequacy, a touchstone for symbolic literacy, and an index of psychic wholeness.