Limitation occupies a peculiarly generative position in the depth-psychology corpus: it is simultaneously a structural fact of human existence, a therapeutic threshold, a cosmological principle, and an ethical imperative. The richest seam of treatment appears in Kurtz’s excavation of Alcoholics Anonymous, where the acceptance of personal limitation — rooted in the ‘not-God’ theology of finitude — becomes the precise mechanism through which healing and wholeness become possible. Far from a mere deficiency, limitation here is the condition of authentic community and spiritual recovery. The I Ching tradition, as rendered by Wilhelm and annotated by Anthony, treats limitation (hexagram 60, Chieh) as a cosmological ordering principle: the division of time into periods, the regulation of production and consumption, the discipline of correct behavior — all are modalities of limitation understood as harmony with natural and moral law. Jung, in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, diagnoses the psychic cost of refusing limitation: the person who fixes upon finite aims becomes envious and diminished, ‘limited because he has limited aims.’ Flores synthesizes Kurtz and the clinical tradition, showing how powerlessness over alcohol functions as a prototype for accepting ‘the wholeness of limitation’ in the broader human condition. Across these voices, a shared tension persists: limitation as constraint versus limitation as creative boundary — Saturn’s repressive structure versus the form-giving necessity that makes individuation, governance, and selfhood possible.