Across the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Universal’ operates on multiple registers simultaneously, and no single author stabilizes its meaning without tension. Jung employs it most persistently in relation to the collective unconscious and its archetypal contents: the universal is that which transcends individual biography and points toward humanity’s shared psychic substrate. For Hillman, the term demands a distinctly psychological re-grounding — an archetypal image is ‘universal’ not because it names a Platonic form hovering above particulars, but because its effect amplifies and depersonalizes, resonating with trans-empirical collective importance. This Neoplatonic inheritance, in which world soul and individual soul mirror each other, runs through Hillman’s reworking of the universals problem. Grof extends the concept phenomenologically, reporting LSD subjects’ encounters with a ‘Universal Mind’ characterized by infinite existence, wisdom, and bliss — a formulation Aurobindo would recognize in his language of Sachchidananda and the universal self-bliss of Chit. Arroyo links the Universal Mind to Jung’s collective unconscious via medieval notions of archetypal form. Giegerich, characteristically dialectical, insists that the truly psychological individual is simultaneously the singular and the universal — a unity of difference only dialectical logic can hold. The term thus traverses epistemology, ontology, comparative religion, and clinical phenomenology, making it a nodal concept through which the corpus negotiates the relationship between the personal and the transpersonal.