54. The examples that are given to explain the nature of Brahma, are to be taken in their partial (and not general) sense.
55. Whatever examples are given here as explanatory of divine nature, they are to be understood as appertaining to a world seen in a dream.
56. In such cases, no corporeal instance can apply to the incorporeal Brahma, nor optional and ambiguous expressions give a definite idea of Him.
57. Those who find fault with instances of an imperfect or contradictory nature, cannot blame our comparison of the appearance of the world to a vision in dream.
58. A prior and posterior non-entity is considered as existent at the present moment (as is the visible world which was not, nor will be afterwards). So the waking and dreaming states are known to be alike from our boyhood.
59. The simile of the existence of the world with the dreaming state is exact in all instances, as our desires, thoughts, our pleasures and displeasures, and all other acts are alike in both states.
60. Both this work and others which have been composed by other authors on the means of salvation, have all pursued the same plan in their explanation of the knowable.
61. The resemblance of the world to a dream is found also in the Srutis or Vedánta. It is not to be explained in a word, but requires a continued course of lectures (on the subject).
62. The comparison of the world to an imagery in the dream or an imaginary Utopia of the mind, is also adduced in examples of this kind in preference to others.
63. Whenever a causality is shown by a simile of something which is no cause, there the simile is applied in some particular and not all its general attributes.