The term ‘Host’ occupies a structurally significant but semantically diverse position across the depth-psychology corpus. In the I Ching commentary tradition, the host (主卦之主, the governing yao) designates the central, authoritative line within a hexagram — typically at the fifth place — whose virtue, position, and correspondence determine the governing theme of the entire gua. Huang’s exegesis and Wang Bi’s classical commentary both emphasize that the host must be virtuous, timely, and correctly positioned, rendering the concept an ethical-cosmological marker rather than a merely formal one. In the ritual and sacramental literature, Jung’s analysis of the Mass deploys a cognate logic: the consecrated Host becomes the locus of divine presence, the sacrificial body around which priest, congregation, and substance cohere into a corpus mysticum. This sacramental register connects directly to questions of sacrifice, transformation, and the union of opposites. In the socio-anthropological and literary registers — Benveniste on Indo-European hospitality, Auerbach on Arthurian romance, Vernant on the Greek hearth — the host-guest relationship (xenia, hospitalitas) structures exchange, loyalty, and the sacred boundary between inside and outside. Simondon introduces a biological valence: the host organism whose autonomy is progressively diminished by the parasite. The tensions between these registers — cosmological authority, sacramental presence, social reciprocity, and biological vulnerability — make ‘Host’ an unexpectedly rich node in the concordance.