Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘spiritual’ functions as a contested, multi-valent term that resists reduction to any single register. The literature divides broadly into three orientations. First, an evolutionary-integral tradition — represented most ambitiously by Sri Aurobindo — treats the spiritual as the telos of consciousness itself, the ‘decisive avenue of entry’ through which the mental being undergoes genuine transmutation. Second, a soul-spirit dialectic, pursued most rigorously by Thomas Moore and James Hillman, insists that ‘spiritual’ and ‘soulful’ are not synonyms: spirituality reaches upward toward purity and transcendence, while soul moves laterally through depth, relatedness, and shadow; when spirituality loses contact with soul it becomes ‘rigid, simplistic, moralistic, and authoritarian.’ Third, a therapeutic-critical strand — Masters, Welwood, Mathieu — scrutinizes the way ‘spiritual’ functions defensively. The concept of spiritual bypassing names the pathological deployment of spiritual practice as avoidance of psychological wounding, exposing a structural irony: the vocabulary of liberation can consolidate the very egoic defenses it claims to dissolve. Orthodox and Tibetan Buddhist sources add liturgical and contemplative dimensions, while the addiction-recovery literature (Pargament, Benda, the ACA tradition) operationalizes ‘spiritual’ as a measurable health variable. What unites these otherwise disparate positions is the shared conviction that ‘spiritual’ cannot be handled innocently.