Continuity is not a single concept in the depth-psychology corpus but a contested axis around which multiple theoretical commitments turn. At its most fundamental, the term names the problem of persistence through change — whether in consciousness, selfhood, biological life, physical reality, or cultural transmission. Jung raises the question of psychic continuity in the context of dreaming, arguing that dreams exhibit both backward and forward continuity, linking past impressions to future alterations of mood. Siegel approaches continuity as a systemic property of the developing mind, where engrained attractor states confer stable self-organization without foreclosing adaptive flexibility. Thompson, drawing on Jonas and autopoietic biology, advances the ‘deep continuity thesis’ — the proposition that life and mind share fundamental organizational properties, making mental continuity an enriched expression of vital continuity. McGilchrist interrogates continuity at the ontological level, insisting with Bergson that flux and the continuity of transition are more real than the fixed snapshots carved from them, while simultaneously arguing that continuity and discontinuity must be held together — that discreteness arises secondarily from an underlying continuous field. Aurobindo treats continuity as the momentum of conditioned nature — mentality, life-impulse, physical mechanism — from which the witnessing Purusha must disentangle itself. Across these registers, continuity is both the ground of identity and the inertial force that resists transformation.