Inaction, as a concept traversing the depth-psychology corpus, refuses any single valence. In the Zhuangist tradition, rendered here through Watson’s translation, inaction (wu wei) is elevated to a sovereign metaphysical principle: the root of ten thousand things, the ground of the sage’s authority, and the condition for what Zhuangzi calls ‘true happiness.’ This is not mere passivity but a paradoxical fullness — a resting that commands, a stillness that governs. The Bhagavad Gita tradition, represented through Easwaran and Aurobindo, turns the valence sharply: inaction is explicitly distinguished from naishkarmya, the state of ‘worklessness,’ which is achieved not by abstaining from effort but through ‘inaction in action’ — selfless engagement that leaves no karmic residue. Here tamas, the guna of inertia, is the shadow-form of inaction: a deadening retreat mistaken for spiritual withdrawal. The Stoic tradition, examined by Inwood, interrogates whether aphorme, the impulse of avoidance, constitutes a genuine form of inaction or merely a differently directed action. In somatic and trauma literature, Levine and Ogden map inaction onto freeze and shutdown responses — involuntary immobility potentiated by fear — revealing the biological substrate beneath what culture often judges as moral cowardice. These perspectives together expose a central tension: whether inaction is a supreme attainment, a dangerous confusion, or an involuntary collapse of agency.