Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Path’ operates simultaneously as a structural metaphor, a soteriological category, and a diagnostic concept. The term organises itself around a fundamental tension: between the linear, goal-directed path of spiritual ascent — emblematic of both Eastern dharmic traditions and Western mystical theology — and the tortuous, labyrinthine path of soul, whose characteristic movement is digression, descent, and initiation rather than progress. Moore articulates this distinction with particular precision, contrasting the ascending spiritual itinerary with the soul’s ‘polytropos’ wandering. Campbell radicalises it further: authentic adventure requires entering the forest where there is no path at all; a pre-existing path is by definition another’s. The Buddhist material, represented by Spiegelman, Evans-Wentz, and the Taoist I Ching authors, insists on the Path as a collective and technical category — the Middle Path, the Noble Eightfold Way, the White Path of Pure Land allegory — carrying the weight of a named discipline rather than a personal trajectory. Jungian voices (Edinger, Jung himself in the alchemical context) tend to read ‘path’ as individuation’s embodied itinerary, non-repeatable and resistant to systematisation. The governing tension of the concordance, then, is between path as transmitted method and path as irreducible personal discovery — a tension that proves generative rather than resolvable.