Causal

I'm starting to see "causal" in the dharma stuff I'm reading. I've come across the word before, of course, but I've never quite got the implications/dimensions of it.

So when people say it's causal, or the causal realm... what are they saying?

Chris is right to point to Ken Wilber for an explanation. Wilber's view is that nearly all of the world's great contemplative traditions have at least three states of consciousness in common: (1) the gross waking state; (2) the subtle dream state; and (3) the causal deep dreamless sleep, or unmanifest, state. The "gross, subtle, causal" terminology comes out of Vedanta. Wilber relates these three basic states, in a broad and general way, to the Buddhist concepts of Nirmanakaya, Sabhogakaya, and Dharmakaya; though, he recognizes that there are subtle qualitative differences in the descriptions of these basic states across traditions.

For Wilber, the causal state is also the hub of Witnessing, which can be accessed outside of deep samadhi or deep sleep. So, he sometimes adds Witnessing as a 4th basic state of consciousness across traditions. This is especially true when the causal level of conscious moves from being a temporary state to a relatively stable trait; that is, when one's identification shifts, through practice (usually) to the Witness.

But why stop there? Wilber than points out that Witnessing is corrupted by the primary dualism that gives rise to all the others - the first subject/object split, or self-contraction. This can give way, which results in the nondual state, or 5th basic state of consciousness available to all human beings.

So, in short, when you hear "causal" think: deep dreamless sleep, Witnessing, unmanifest.

I thought scientists had shown that there is no such thing as "dreamless sleep," that are brains are always working, always processing.

My understanding is that brain activity is always "lit up" somewhere, but that doesn't mean that one is dreaming. If you've ever had a vision in spiritual practice, you're aware of what the subtle/dreaming state is like.

According to some contemplative teachings (from Vedanta and Vajrayana Buddhism), most people are unable to remain conscious during dreamless sleep. But, I guess it's possible to practice in such a way as to first remain conscious during dream sleep (lucid dreaming), and then to be able to maintain a continuity of awareness-without-object during dreamless sleep. I've only experienced something like this while sleeping once, and it was a complete fluke. Reality sort of emerged in reverse order (consciousness without object, then thoughts arose, than awareness of my body). I remained in a state of identification with total absence (save for empty cognizance) for quite sometime, while my mind and body appeared to be confused about what was going on. Very weird. I wouldn't really call it "nondual" because there was a detached quality to it, rather than a fully embodied presence. That's why I think it was an accidental "causal" state experience - and a strong one.

Then again, this was prior to my being able to accessing Witnessing in any sort of stable way during intentional practice. I think the strangeness of the experience was due to the fact that it came out of nowhere, and was something new for me.

Jackson - Neat! I had exactly that happen once also, also as a sort of fluke thing. I recall it a bit differently: first just consciousness (not sleeping), then awareness of the body, then more clear awareness of the body (then sensations of being touched by the blanket, being warm, etc), then the thought stream kicked in and I was fully awake. It was cool, but very strange. Around that time I also lucid dreamed several times and had a lot of spontaneous visions during meditation.

Thanks for sharing, Ona. I think it's an experience a lot of spiritual practitioners have had.
I remember telling Kenneth Folk about this after it happened, and he referred to it as "waking up in awareness." I like simplicity of that description, even though the experience is often much more nuanced than the statement implies.

Thanks everyone, yeah Wilber is confusing me...

Part of my problem might just be the word choice. Sounds like causal is the ground or background, the unconditioned. And it's called causal because it allows for all other compounded expressions of consciousness?

(And so there isn't really a good word for it because there really isn't a separation between unconditioned and conditioned.... But why causal then?)

Ha!!! You have MADE MY F*#)(Q-ing DAY!!

"The "gross, subtle, causal" terminology comes out of Vedanta"-- Jackson

[as does the whole concept of 'the Witness'-- these are ideas explicated by Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta, and picked up by Wilber, and before him by Adi Da, who may be Wilber's source]

Not nearly as aethetically satisfying as your answer, Chris: my apologies!

Thanks, putting profanity aside, googling causal Vendanta is providing some interesting links.

(edits -- typo and dropped words, seems like the editing window is dropping some words I've cut and pasted into it.)

Okay, I’m starting to understand the cause of my confusion. Basically, I think Ingram uses causal to mean mind/body in the whole range from "gross, subtle, and causal" realm.

Ingram: "Thus, what happens in reality is that segments of the process of making specific categories and patterns of the causal, sensate field into a separate “self” is reduced and then stops."

Whereas Wilber/Vedanta uses for the subtle sensations/materiality that "sheathes the soul". This is similar to how Ingram talks about the Anagami's problem with assuming some kind of super-awareness that is still removed from the world.

sorry about all that space, not sure how it happened