From the perspective of "light" alone, it is possible to interpret the second or third dhyana (absorption) in the Theravada Buddhist realm of form as corresponding to the karana dimension. However, the matter is not so simple.

The realm of the second dhyana is called the "world of light." It is divided into three levels, from the lowest to the highest, and is named as follows: "small light beings," "limitless light beings," and "radiant beings" (light-sound beings). The meaning is, as the names suggest, the degree of light, whether it is little, limitless, or self-radiating. ("The Ladder of Enlightenment" by Akira Fujimoto)

Based solely on the explanation in this part of the book, the second dhyana seems to have characteristics similar to the karana dimension. However, it appears that even in the subsequent third dhyana, the classification is based on the intensity of light.

In the third dhyana, (omitted), it is called "pure light," which is one level higher than the second dhyana. It is classified as "small pure light beings," "limitless pure light beings," and "all-pervading pure light beings." (from the same book)

Around this point, the Theravada system of levels becomes increasingly ambiguous as one progresses through the dhyanas, and it does not seem to have a clear classification. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that any particular stage of dhyana corresponds to the karana dimension in Professor Honzan's classification.

In this regard, the classification of Zen seems to be more clear. In Zen, it is possible that Dogen's enlightenment transcended the karana dimension, but as a school of Zen, the karana dimension can be considered the goal of enlightenment, which is a clear-cut perspective. On the other hand, the classification in Theravada Buddhism is ambiguous in the later stages, and it is unclear whether this is intentional to make it difficult for outsiders to understand, or simply because there are few who have achieved it. However, from an outside perspective, it seems to be something that is not easily understood.