The term ‘Void’ occupies a wide and contested terrain within the depth-psychology corpus, drawing simultaneously on pre-Socratic atomism, Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophy, Tantric somatic practice, Aurobindian metaphysics, and Jungian alchemical psychology. In the Epicurean tradition, as documented by Long and Sedley, void names the second permanent constituent of reality alongside body — intangible, non-resistant, and logically necessary for motion. Buddhist usage, as transmitted through Campbell and Evans-Wentz, radicalizes this ontological neutrality: the Mahayana formula ‘form is void and void is form’ dissolves the binary altogether, situating the Void beyond the very opposition of Nirvana and Samsara. Tantric sources — Singh’s Vijnana Bhairava in particular — transform the Void into a contemplative practice-object: the meditator imagines the body as ‘absolutely void,’ directionless, unsupported, a technique for dissolving ego-structure and entering non-dual awareness. Aurobindo interrogates the Buddhist Void critically, warning that an Energy functioning in a void becomes itself unintelligible, pointing toward a Non-Being or Nihil. Hillman, speaking from the alchemical tradition, reclaims the void as a positive interior force within the vessel — productive emptiness rather than absence. Across these positions, a fundamental tension organizes the discourse: is the Void a metaphysical substratum, a soteriological goal, a contemplative instrument, or a psychological danger to be circumvented?