Immortal Life stands in the depth-psychology corpus at the intersection of ontology, soteriology, and the phenomenology of soul. The tradition distributes itself across at least four distinct positions. The Platonic-Neoplatonic axis, represented by Plato’s Phaedo and Plotinus’s Enneads, grounds immortality in the soul’s essential nature as the very principle of life: because soul brings life wherever it inheres, it cannot admit death, and this is not a borrowed condition but a self-springing one. Greek archaic poetry, as read by Rohde, Sullivan, and Nagy, complicates the picture sharply: for Pindar the ‘immortal life’ of unending bios belongs to gods alone, and the soul that grasps for it oversteps human measure. The Daoist corpus—examined extensively by Kohn and illuminated obliquely by Campbell—relocates the question bodily and practically: immortality is achievable through regimen, inner alchemy, and moral merit, and is inseparable from lineage, ancestry, and state legitimation. Sri Aurobindo’s integral perspective reformulates the problem evolutionarily, holding that the supramental transformation might eventually overcome the physical causes of decay, making bodily immortal life a real but remote developmental possibility. Throughout, depth psychology proper—Jung, Edinger, von Franz—treats immortal life less as a metaphysical claim than as an archetypal motif whose psychological function is the representation of the Self’s transpersonal, deathless core. The tensions among these positions—essence versus practice, divine prerogative versus human aspiration, metaphysical fact versus psychological symbol—give the concordance entry its enduring vitality.