Within the depth-psychology corpus assembled under the Seba library, ‘Fault’ occupies a liminal position between moral philosophy, divinatory hermeneutics, and therapeutic epistemology. The term’s richest elaboration arrives through the I Ching commentarial tradition, where the Chinese ideogram CHIU — rendered consistently as ‘unworthy conduct that leads to harm, illness, misfortune,’ its graphic root meaning ‘person and differ, differ from what you should be’ — establishes fault not as externally adjudicated transgression but as an ontological deviation from one’s proper nature. The phrase ‘without fault,’ WU CHIU, appears as a recurring oracular verdict across dozens of hexagram lines, functioning as a reassurance that action taken in alignment with the time and situation carries no karmic residue. This stands in productive tension with the therapeutic tradition, where Miller’s motivational interviewing explicitly brackets fault as irrelevant to the counseling encounter, instituting a ‘no-fault policy’ that redirects energy from blame assignment to change. Epstein, drawing on Balint’s concept of the ‘basic fault,’ situates it as a pre-verbal developmental wound surfacing through Buddhist meditation practice. The Catholic monastic tradition cited by James proposes a radical inversion: obedience to superiors renders fault metaphysically impossible. Together these voices reveal fault as a site where moral accountability, psychological self-reproach, and spiritual alignment converge and contest one another.