The term Tao occupies a peculiar and irreducible position within the depth-psychology corpus: it resists domestication into Western psychological categories while simultaneously attracting sustained interpretive effort from some of the tradition’s most significant voices. Jung, Wilhelm, Watts, Campbell, and the Taoist I Ching commentators each approach Tao from a distinct angle, yet converge on several core recognitions. First, that Tao names something prior to the conceptual opposition of subject and object, conscious and unconscious, light and dark — a ground-principle that generates polarity without being reducible to either pole. Second, that depth psychology’s central preoccupation with the Self, with individuation, and with the tension between ego and unconscious finds a structural analogue in the Chinese concept, however imperfect the translation. Wilhelm translates Tao as ‘Sinn’ (Meaning); Jung notes that Western languages have no equivalent; Ritsema and Karcher emphasize its connection to purposive, self-renewing energy. The I Ching tradition — in both its Confucian-Wilhelmian and Taoist-alchemical registers — treats Tao as the law underlying change itself, the pattern disclosed by hexagrammatic consultation. For Campbell, Tao gestures toward the same archaic stratum as dharma, the impersonal ordering principle of cosmos. The Taoist I Ching commentary distinguishes between the ‘mind of Tao’ and the ‘human mind,’ a dichotomy with direct resonance in Jungian discussions of ego versus Self. Tensions remain: whether Tao is primarily cosmological, psychological, or soteriological; and whether Western individuation genuinely converges with Taoist self-cultivation or merely borrows its rhetoric.