There cannot be any such thing as 'non-volitional living'; taken as a verb it is in fact a contradiction in terms, for the act of living non-volitionally must constitute an act of volition - the volition of non-volition. Like other negatives it is a mode of its positive, as its positive is a mode of itself.
But the fact, not the act, indicates something which phenomenally can be, for it can imply 'being lived', whereby 'non-volitionally' is understood, since there is no place for volition in the process of being lived.
Since, however, there is every reason, total evidence, to suppose that we are in fact lived, entirely and absolutely lived, like all dreamed figures in every sort and degree of dream, there cannot be any such factor as volition in the serial development of our lives.
'Volition', then, is not an effective element at all in phenomenal life, but one that is imagined to be such. It is in fact an expression of an I-concept, an 'ego' appearing to function, and as such may be seen as pure clowning, a psychic activity which, by pretended interference in the chain of cause-and-effect, produces the reactions recognised as satisfaction or frustration, according to whether the attempted interference has been in accordance with what had to occur or has been opposed to that.
Volitionally inhibiting 'volition', therefore, in no way factually effects the serial evolution of our lives, in no way has any impact on events, and endeavouring to abolish 'egotic' volition can only reinforce it by such an exercise of itself. For instance, when we are told to 'lay everything down', that means abandoning volitional activity - for everything we are required to 'lay down' is a supposed effect of supposed volition, and it could only be 'done' by a voluntary act, that is by a supposed 'ego' or independent 'self'; from which it follows that such is nothing more than an act of clowning or mummery.
If, then, it can effectually be done it must be a result, an effect of cause, and that cause can only be in the chain of causation which cannot in any degree be affected by an act of will on the part of a supposed 'ego' or I-concept. Such cause can only arise as an effect of prior causes which, in such a case as that under consideration, can only appear as a result of understanding, the development of which may be described, somewhat metaphorically, as 'our' only freedom. (It is, of course, not 'ours', and phenomena cannot have 'freedom', which anyhow is only a concept applicable conceptually to them, but perhaps the 'noumenality' which in-forms phenomena manifests directly so that understanding may arise or 'appear'.)
Therefore non-volitional living, 'laying down' everything by an abandonment of volitional activity, or 'letting ourselves be lived', can only be effected by non-action (wu-wei); i.e. as a result of understanding arrived at by identification with the noumenality of prajna; that is, as an effect of in-seeing.
No apparent volitional interference is involved, nor, if it were, could it have any bearing on the effect except in so far as its absence or latency, the non-arising of ego-activity, leaves the mind open for the direct or intuitional apprehension which is represented by the picturesque Sanscrit concept called 'prajna'.
The intuition, indeed, is direct, but the result appears to us as indirect, for, to us, what we regard as 'direct' is a supposed effect of 'volition'. That is integral in the illusion of separate individuality and the notion of an 'ego' or I-concept, just as 'volition' is the apparent expression or activity of that, whereas in fact non-volitional life or being-lived is direct living, spontaneous living, wu wei, and at the same time is living without tears.
