The term ‘Buddha Way’ surfaces across the depth-psychology corpus as a contested but generative category, functioning simultaneously as historical path, soteriological imperative, and psychological analogue. Dōgen Eihei treats it with institutional precision: the Buddha Way demands wholehearted practice, realized most purely in shikantaza (just sitting), and entails a renunciation of property, rank, and worldly reputation that constitutes a complete reformation of body and mind. For Dōgen, the Way is not a metaphor but a disciplined inheritance transmitted from Shakyamuni through a lineage of masters. Watts and Suzuki, by contrast, situate the Buddha Way within a broader mythopoetic framework: the Way as the breaking-point of ordinary consciousness, a sudden ‘turning about’ that cannot be willed. Campbell reads the Buddha’s departure from the palace and progress toward the Bodhi-tree as a hero-mythological enactment whose cultural consequences shaped half of humanity. Brazier, writing from a therapeutic register, aligns the Buddha Way with the actualizing tendency of humanistic psychology, interpreting ethics not as external constraint but as the natural expression of buddha-nature. The tension that runs through the corpus is structural: is the Buddha Way an achieved accomplishment requiring sustained monastic discipline, or an uncovering of what was always already present? This polarity — effort versus recognition, practice versus nature — gives the term its enduring psychological charge.