A question to the Buddhist schollars.

[C T]

"But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation, there is one danger against which they must be on their guard. Disciples may not appreciate that the mind-system, because of its accumulated habit-energy, goes on functioning, more or less unconsciously, as long as they live. They may sometimes think that they can expedite the attainment of their goal of tranquillisation by entirely suppressing the activities of the mind-system. This is a mistake, for even if the activities of the mind are suppressed, the mind will still go on functioning because the seeds of habit-energy will still remain in it. What they think is extinction of mind, is really the non-functioning of the mind's external world to which they are no longer attached. That is, the goal of tranquillisation is to be reached

not by suppressing all mind activity but by getting rid of discriminations and attachments."

 

Good advice indeed. Thanks for the reminder!

[Seth Ananda]

"But, Mahamati, as earnest disciples go on trying to advance on the path that leads to full realisation, there is one danger against which they must be on their guard. Disciples may not appreciate that the mind-system, because of its accumulated habit-energy, goes on functioning, more or less unconsciously, as long as they live. They may sometimes think that they can expedite the attainment of their goal of tranquillisation by entirely suppressing the activities of the mind-system. This is a mistake, for even if the activities of the mind are suppressed, the mind will still go on functioning because the seeds of habit-energy will still remain in it. What they think is extinction of mind, is really the non-functioning of the mind's external world to which they are no longer attached. That is, the goal of tranquillisation is to be reached

not by suppressing all mind activity but by getting rid of discriminations and attachments."

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb15.htm

 

have you checked out these texts at all Seth?

Thanks, Good stuff

[xabir2005]

Lol, start a thread, go away for two days, come back and Wow!

Well I am wading through it...

Not sure where to start.

 

Thanks Cow Tao for the links

But a question. Your zhentong thread:

 

http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/zhentong-other-emptiness/

 

lead me to this:

 

http://www.nirvanasutra.net/

 

What!? [explanations anyone?] {possibly a dangerous question, lol}

 

Ill get the rest of my other questions straightened out soon...

the translator of the sutra has a warped understanding of the sutra. He does not understand emptiness (the twofold emptiness is what is peculiar about buddhism and what leads to liberation) and holds the view of the Hindu atman. As namdrol has said before, some of the biggest fools in buddhism are those who take nirvana sutra and the true self teachings literally (not understanding it in context).

 

Anyway as namdrol has also said, zhentong is eternalism no different essentially with advaita, rangtong is nihilism, both extremes are the creation of the shentongpas. (That said not some kagyu teachers who teach shentong actually teaches a less extreme version of it so I shall not generalize all shentong people as "eternalists" straight on) prasangika madhyamika is true middle way. Dzogchen teachings, for example, as chnnr stated is of the prasangika madhyamika philosophically, with the difference being that the understanding in dzogchen is not derived via intellectual analysis.

 

Also the topic of eternal self in nirvana sutra has already been discussed: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/10981-the-eternal-self-of-the-buddha/page__st__-8

 

Loppon Namdrol:

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4056&sid=95bbacb894cfe3ff811e0dbcd5ba7af3

 

"Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya."

 

"That depends on who you ask. In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is the union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelugpa school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they lack inherent existence; according to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind which expresses itself in terms of omniscience, etc, when adventitious obscurations are removed. In Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind.

 

There is only one Indian commentary on this issue -- the Uttaratantra and its commentary by Asanga.

 

In Chinese Buddhism it is interpreted more literally, in texts such as Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, and in some currents of Sino-Japanese Buddhism it is indistinguishable from Advaita. The Chinese had no experience with Hindus, really, and did not guard as well as the Tibetans against eternalism creeping into their Buddhism."

 

"Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:

 

That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.

 

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

 

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

 

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

 

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

 

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

 

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

 

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

 

The Bhagavan replied:

 

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

 

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

 

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

 

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

 

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

 

Thus, the Lanka says:

 

All yaanas are included

in five dharmas, three natures,

eight consciousnesses,

and two selflessnesses

 

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

 

If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

 

Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

 

Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.

 

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.

 

And:

 

Although tathaagatagarbha

possesses seven consciousnesses;

always engaged with dualistic apprehensions

[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.

 

 

If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

 

"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.

`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.

 

And:

 

`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

 

Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

 

Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:

 

"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.

 

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

 

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/ and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

 

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

 

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon. "

Edited July 20, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Most importantly, if you did have experiential realization of anatta like you indicated, you will be doubtless that there is no real self, be it a personal self or some unchanging overarching self of hinduism. You will also be beyond the view of an unchanging substance. You do not need sutras to confirm your understanding nor can another buddha shake your realization either.

Edited July 20, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

He has expanded nothingness ad infinitum Vmarco.

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

Most importantly, if you did have experiential realization of anatta like you indicated, you will be doubtless that there is no real self, be it a personal self or some unchanging overarching self of hinduism. You will also be beyond the view of an unchanging substance. You do not need sutras to confirm your understanding nor can another buddha shake your realization either.

Sure, But the whole reason I started this thread is to understand the logic used by the shentongs, about Buddha nature having an Existent element. I just can't see what the justification is yet, and they clearly [outside that Nirvans sutra] claim to not be prescribing to an Atman theory.

 

Why do you feel Rangtong is nihilistic?

I personally love Nagajuna's philosophy. its doing wonders for me. I feel like its freeing me from the world bit by bit, or starting to cure me of golds physicalism...

[xabir2005]

Sure, But the whole reason I started this thread is to understand the logic used by the shentongs, about Buddha nature having an Existent element. I just can't see what the justification is yet, and they clearly [outside that Nirvans sutra] claim to not be prescribing to an Atman theory.

 

Why do you feel Rangtong is nihilistic?

I personally love Nagajuna's philosophy. its doing wonders for me. I feel like its freeing me from the world bit by bit, or starting to cure me of golds physicalism...

I think you did not catch my drift in my earliest post.

 

Shentong and rangtong distinctions are creation of the shentongpas. The shentongpas created this bogeyman distinction of two extreme interpretations of nagarjuna's middle way.

 

Nagarjuna himself rejected both the view of intrinsic emptiness and extrinsic emptiness, rangtong and shentong.

 

If shentong assert an inherent, independent, unchanging and ultimate luminous awareness, that would be the atman view and that would be under scrutiny. See http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

After your realization of anatta, what is your insight and experience about luminous pristine awareness?

Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

He has expanded nothingness ad infinitum Vmarco.

no. I experience and guide others (as per my ebook) through progressive stages of realization about luminosity and emptiness (and their inseperability).

 

I talk about the luminous awareness that while being the basis of everything, is utterly empty of inherent existence or non-existence, this being the middle way. This accords with the 3rd karmapa's text:

 

http://www.kagyu.org.nz/content/aspirationprayer.html

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

 

Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.

By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

 

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.

 

If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.

If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.

The true nature of phenomena,

which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.

May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth.

 

Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara.

If it is realised, buddha is not anything other.

It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it."

May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,

which is the basis of everything, be realised.

[goldisheavy]

Haha... i know what you are thinking, Seth. Did the same thing myself. No comments as yet.

Its apparent this guy had done some serious homework, but that does not mean he is right. Its just the way he has assimilated the teachings according to his own understanding and intent, i think. Would be nice to have him come debate with our brilliant buddhist scholars here, dont you think so?

 

Are you referring to various (introductory) commentary on the site or the translation of the text itself?

 

I think if the text is authentic and the translation is decent, it's probably worth reading no matter if it's really Buddhist or not. It's easier for me because I don't have to defend my view of how Buddhism should or should not be. If I was committed to Buddhism as a religion (as opposed to wisdom), and if I developed a strong belief that Buddhist writings only and ever advocated the not-self and impermanence views, then seeing this kind of material would throw my beliefs about Buddhist religion and my vested identity into question. Then I would be like "What?? This has to be fake!!! Get the hell out of here... no way can this Sutra be real, etc..." But as it stands, it may be real or not. I don't mind either way. I'll pay attention to it if it says anything thought-provoking or interesting.

 

I think Buddha liked to throw an occasional curve ball anyway. In the Pali Canon we keep reading about impermanent this and impermanent that and then bam, Udana Suttas talking about something permanent. (queue the hard-core Buddhists: "No maaaann.... it's undying and unborn... it's not permanent... there is a difference maaaan.... how dare you use the word 'permanent.' You'll be going to Avici hell for this one!! blblblblb :o ")

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

Are you referring to various (introductory) commentary on the site or the translation of the text itself?

 

I think if the text is authentic and the translation is decent, it's probably worth reading no matter if it's really Buddhist or not. It's easier for me because I don't have to defend my view of how Buddhism should or should not be. If I was committed to Buddhism as a religion (as opposed to wisdom), and if I developed a strong belief that Buddhist writings only and ever advocated the not-self and impermanence views, then seeing this kind of material would throw my beliefs about Buddhist religion and my vested identity into question. Then I would be like "What?? This has to be fake!!! Get the hell out of here... no way can this Sutra be real, etc..." But as it stands, it may be real or not. I don't mind either way. I'll pay attention to it if it says anything thought-provoking or interesting.

 

I think Buddha liked to throw an occasional curve ball anyway. In the Pali Canon we keep reading about impermanent this and impermanent that and then bam, Udana Suttas talking about something permanent. (queue the hard-core Buddhists: "No maaaann.... it's undying and unborn... it's not permanent... there is a difference maaaan.... how dare you use the word 'permanent.' You'll be going to Avici hell for this one!! blblblblb :o ")

Buddhists have no qualms taking the cessation state to be unconditioned and permanent. It simply is not a ground of being or a self.

[goldisheavy]

Buddhists have no qualms taking the cessation state to be unconditioned and permanent. It simply is not a ground of being or a self.

 

"State" and "unconditioned" seem like two words that don't belong together. I agree that Nirvana is a state, but Nirvana occurs in recognition of an unchanging reality. In other words, the experience of Nirvana is something that can come and go, but Nirvana as a stable experience wouldn't occur if all we could know were changes. In other words, you cannot get relief from fluctuations if your state of relief itself is constantly fluctuating. Knowing the deathless nature of one's own day to day mind one can relax.

 

That's why Buddha Dharma, the real deal that is, is impossible to pin down to a dogma. It really escapes all extreme conceptions, and someone who appreciates skillful means should use both positive and negative language to promote wisdom.

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

How is this anyway helpful in a discussion? I can hear this type of "I experienced it, you didn't" type of stuff in church.

 

Yes, you're right, that was pretty selfish of me, excuse my prideful slip. I re-read it with embarrassment.

 

That's not what I'm suggesting.

 

Ok, whatever... you know what you're suggesting. I wish you well.

 

Maybe I am paranoid?

 

Still, I feel that anyone not yet an Anuttarasamyaksambodhi does need enlightened lineage. It's absolutely helpful in way's not understood by most. Of course.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Still, I feel that anyone not yet an Anuttarasamyaksambodhi does need enlightened lineage. It's absolutely helpful in way's not understood by most. Of course.

When I feel like I need one, I'll be open to it.

 

I got a little heated there too.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

When I feel like I need one, I'll be open to it.

 

I got a little heated there too.

 

There are so many better things to save my inner Aries fire for! Like my skateboard!!

[Seth Ananda]

 

If shentong assert an inherent, independent, unchanging and ultimate luminous awareness, that would be the atman view and that would be under scrutiny. See http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

I totally agree. But I was asking what their Logic for doing this is based on.

They say that what they postulate is different to the atman view, and I am trying to figure out that rationalization.

How is it different, and do they think they have a way that they can make something existent, without it becoming an object of fixation? The idea seems ludicrous to me, but I would like to understand their perspective properly before writing them off.

 

And In regards to Dzogchen, was Longchenpa a shentong? He does not seem to be at all from my reading of him.

 

Also some teachers say that understanding the two views is of great use, and that the truth is found between them. I would like a greater understanding of why they say this.

In peoples words if possible with out excessive Link posting.

[Vmarco]

[thuscomeone]

I totally agree. But I was asking what their Logic for doing this is based on.

They say that what they postulate is different to the atman view, and I am trying to figure out that rationalization.

How is it different, and do they think they have a way that they can make something existent, without it becoming an object of fixation? The idea seems ludicrous to me, but I would like to understand their perspective properly before writing them off.

 

And In regards to Dzogchen, was Longchenpa a shentong? He does not seem to be at all from my reading of him.

 

Also some teachers say that understanding the two views is of great use, and that the truth is found between them. I would like a greater understanding of why they say this.

In peoples words if possible with out excessive Link posting.

Yes, between the two views is the place to be.

 

Transcending ALL views and concepts (self, no self, emptiness, form) by realizing that what you are is prior to them -- emptiness as form.

Edited July 21, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I totally agree. But I was asking what their Logic for doing this is based on.

They say that what they postulate is different to the atman view, and I am trying to figure out that rationalization.

How is it different, and do they think they have a way that they can make something existent, without it becoming an object of fixation? The idea seems ludicrous to me, but I would like to understand their perspective properly before writing them off.

 

And In regards to Dzogchen, was Longchenpa a shentong? He does not seem to be at all from my reading of him.

 

Also some teachers say that understanding the two views is of great use, and that the truth is found between them. I would like a greater understanding of why they say this.

In peoples words if possible with out excessive Link posting.

The atman view is different because it assumes an eternal entity that passes from body to body until it reaches enlightenment as if there is a soul residing in the body that is aware. Or an independent mind, true self, etc.

 

It's really the other way around that the appearance of body and the appearance of life and death is experienced by the mind. When you fall asleep and dream of a new body and a new environment, it is incorrect to believe that an entity has traveled from the awaking state to the dream state. Rather it is just projections of the mind's contents dependently originating on the conditions it supposes. It's just been your mind experiencing itself all along.

 

But aside from Buddhism I like to just investigate what exactly it means for one to be aware. As in, what is the nature of our aliveness, the sense of being. We usually take granted the idea of the duality of there being a subject and an external object that it experiences. Or that somehow one is the causes or conditions for the other, just as popular science says the brain is where our consciousness rises. Or that our awareness is dependently originated.

 

What can we directly verify and what is mere speculation? Just strip it down to the bare minimum of what we can know directly from experience without suggestions from science or religion.

 

Note to Xabir/TCO/Vaj, let's please not start an argument among us. Just post our views and move along.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Don't worry, I don't want to debate

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Seth,

 

I wrote this in another thread to share my observations of anatta inquiry. I would like to know if what I wrote pertains to your experience somewhat. Thanks!

 

Does thinking see thinking? Does sound hear sound? That would mean sound is aware. (You would blast music and awareness would drift as the soundwaves) Or mental processes are aware in themselves. Where does a thought begin and end? You would be all these chopped up awarenesses and have no connection between tasting and hearing. No memory would be established or a sense of being.

 

You may conclude that from such reasoning that objectifies that moment of thought to itself, and go, "look, there is just these disparate moments of thought, me moving, jus things arising spontaneously." And the critical juncture during this inquiry is the realization that that very thought ("look, there is just these disparate...") itself is also another rising. And one falsely thinks this is the nature of reality when really you are just impersonally experiencing things as they rise because they are objectified. This is what you call "no-self realization."

 

This is just another way of experiencing reality and I have no problem with that. It's spontaneous and liberating, a great way to practice and let go of grasping for me/mine mental habits.

 

But the Buddhadharma says the objects are empty also. So you inquire into thoughts, movement, phenomena, and conclude there are no inherent separation or identity to them. However, here you are missing a critical flaw in the process, because in order to investigate various arisings, they must be contained, connected, or somehow perceived in their totality. You are stepping out of the "just this arising" understanding in order to see the relationship between multiple arisings. And to justify this process, you say afterwards, "oh, that was just another arising." There is no such thing as "just arising" inquiry. Inquiry demands connection, division, multiplicity, memory, reflection. It is a fluid process.

 

So it's like you have a loop of justification. So you come to a nonsensical conclusion that, well, it's just like magic. As a crude example this is like a man looking for his eyes and seeing objects and not his eyes concludes that objects "see" themselves. And to see whether objects really exist or not, he closes his eye and sees darkness. So he concludes objects are not really there either. He doesn't understand that this whole thing just happens in his seeing-nature and denies his seeing entirely.

 

You can deny everything in the world, but not awareness. Because that final denial happens in awareness. Nor does it make sense to say awareness belongs to arising of disparate moments. Not does it make sense to say one can directly know that awareness comes from something else (that can only be speculated as scientists attribute it to the brain).

 

You can say awareness dependently originates, but only in the sense that a ball bounces. The fact that the ball bounces does not deny the ball. That would be stupid. Dependent origination is just how this dimension of awareness works.