The Jungian framework, as treated across the depth-psychology corpus, designates far more than a doctrinal system: it names a living, contested, and expansive orientation toward psyche, symbol, and therapeutic encounter. Sedgwick maps its clinical architecture — the temenos as sacred therapeutic space, the ego-Self axis as organizing principle, the dialectic between classical and post-Jungian technique — while simultaneously insisting that the framework must absorb and answer challenges from contemporary psychoanalytic thought. Samuels’ taxonomic project in Jung and the Post-Jungians reveals internal fissures: classical, archetypal, and developmental schools each claim legitimate Jungian descent, and the framework’s very productivity has generated ‘splits and factionalism’ (Papadopoulos) demanding scholarly arbitration. Von Franz, Edinger, and Stein tend to treat the framework as an evolving myth of modern consciousness, grounding it in alchemical symbolism, the ego-Self relationship, and the individuation trajectory. More recent scholarship — McGovern in neuroscience, Sun and Kim in shamanic studies, Wiener in transference theory — reveals the framework’s generative capacity to interface with empirical disciplines without dissolving into them. The overarching tension is productive: whether the Jungian framework is best understood as a comprehensive psychology of transformation, a clinical methodology, a spiritual anthropology, or a meta-theoretical lens capable of synthesis with other traditions. That irresolution constitutes the framework’s intellectual vitality.