The term ‘Inner Self’ occupies a contested but generative space within the depth-psychology corpus, drawing simultaneously on Jungian archetypal theory, Internal Family Systems, humanistic psychology, and spiritual traditions ranging from Sufism to Vedanta. Jung himself approached the inner self primarily through the construct of the Self as a transpersonal organizing center—superordinate to the ego, capable of directing individuation, and expressed through dreams, synchronicity, and the ‘inner voice.’ Edinger, Signell, and the Papadopoulos handbook extend this framework, treating the inner self as both a structural hypothesis and a phenomenologically accessible reality. Horney stakes out a rival position: her ‘real self’ is a vitalizing psychological force, not an archetypal entity, distinguished sharply from Freud’s anemic ego. Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems model radically pluralizes the inner domain, positing a core Self that must be differentiated from protective ‘parts,’ making Self-leadership the therapeutic goal. Kalsched complicates any idealized picture by insisting that the Self’s defensive structures can themselves become persecutory. Aurobindo situates the inner self within an evolutionary-spiritual cosmology in which the psychic being displaces ego as guide. Across these positions, the central tension is between a unitary, integrating inner center and a multiplicity of inner agencies—a tension that proves productive rather than resolvable.