Within the depth-psychology corpus, crying occupies a remarkably plural theoretical space, examined simultaneously as biological signal, grief behavior, mythological motif, developmental phenomenon, and somatic event. Biologically oriented voices—Lench drawing on ethological theory, Panksepp from affective neuroscience, Fogel from embodied self-awareness—converge on crying as an evolutionarily shaped communication that engages the autonomic nervous system, elicits altruistic responses from observers, and is governed by competing pressures of social cost and physiological necessity. Fogel’s notion of the ‘good cry’ as a parasympathetic activation restoring homeostasis stands in productive tension with Burnett’s skeptical personal testimony that crying need not produce relief. Clinically, Worden frames tears as potential vehicles of toxic emotional discharge in grief, while Klein’s infant observations situate unheard crying at the origin of persecutory anxiety. From a Jungian-mythological perspective, Estes reads tears as a substance possessing sacred and purifying properties in world mythology—healing wounds, repelling demons, calling spirits. Panksepp’s neurobiological work establishes the PANIC system and endogenous opioids as the neurochemical substrate for separation distress vocalizations across species, linking human crying to phylogenetically ancient attachment circuitry. Lench’s ethological framework—understanding weeping as ritualized signal with differential costs for social rank and sex—adds evolutionary-sociological nuance. The term thus serves as a crossroads between soma and psyche, individual and relational, biological adaptation and cultural ritual.