Also see this post on Ajata Vada and this post on Turiya

‘Unreal’, both in Vedanta and in common parlance, means that which doesn’t actually exist; ‘real’ means that which exists.

This means that if something exists it is real, and vice versa. This is highlighted by the fact that in Sanskrit, the most common word for both ‘real’ and ‘exists’ is the same word ‘satya’ or ‘sat’. ie. the Sanskrit word ‘sat’ means both ‘real’ and ‘exists’. I have seen some commentators say that something can be unreal but still exist, and vice versa. In doing so they have uncoupled the meaning of these synonymous words, ‘real’ and ‘exists’, which is particularly ironic as in Sanskrit they are one and the same word, ‘sat’.

Vedanta texts say that which changes is unreal, or the things that are subject to change are unreal, meaning that which changes does not truly exist (ie. They do not exist in self-realisation, or they are non-existent when the self is realised).

Vedanta texts do not define ‘real’ as being ‘that which doesn’t change’, nor does the word ‘unreal’ simply refer to things that exist but change/are subject to change. Never do we see this false definition in the Vedanta scriptures.

I hope you can see the difference. If you cannot see the difference, then please reflect on the above as it is in important part of the teaching, and this is an important way the teaching is distorted by the ego-mind.

Note that if the teaching is distorted in this way it is likely not to lead to liberation.

So how does this all fit together?

The idea is that if you discover Sat (reality) in its true essence, meaning as it really or truly is, devoid of illusion or ignorance, all that is anitya (impermanent) will disappear, and so be revealed to be asat (unreal or non-existent), its only having appeared to exist due to ignorance/error.

This has been explained by Sri Ramana Maharshi many times, for example, see the following verses of Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad:

88. That which survives in the experience of the real Self is the supreme state. [That] alone is real. All else is only unreal. This is the distinction between the real and the unreal, revealed to us by the teachings of all the sages.

91 As the dream world is known to be unreal for the reason that it vanishes upon waking, so this waking world is also proved to be unreal by its vanishing in the light of the real Self.

92 But ignorant men, who are averse to winning the supreme state, put forth an endless series of arguments, [trying to refute this teaching]. The sages clear the doubts generated by these arguments so that earnest aspirants may not be deluded by them.

We are then cautioned about teaching this teaching to those who are attached to the notion that they are the body mind (living in a world), or those who cling to the notion of the self being the owner of the body mind:

93 This teaching of the unreality of the world is not addressed to those who look upon the body itself as the Self, or consider the Self to be the owner of the body. For these people the world is real, not unreal.

However, for those who genuinely seek liberation, this teaching is given:

95 To those who seek deliverance, the teaching is that all these three are equally unreal. This teaching must [therefore] be accepted, exactly as it is taught, by those who are earnestly seeking to win deliverance by the extinction of ignorance.

How can something that we perceive be unreal? Sri Ramana explains:

98 Everyone who is ignorant [of the real Self] thinks the world is real because it is seen. This is no proof because it proves too much. The same reason would prove the reality of the mirage, the rope in the snake, etc.

And so the text continues in this vein, drumming home the teaching. See the introductory articles on tomdas.com to explore this further, especially this article. I have made a YouTube video on this that explains this more here.

AN OBJECTION TO THIS TEACHING – THE MIRAGE vs ROPE & SNAKE

Q. Tom, a mirage exists yet it is unreal. In the same sense a separate ego-mind-body-world exists yet is unreal in the sense that its existence is dependent. Knowing that on which it depends as oneself is bliss…..
Just some early morning musings…

Tom: this is not the vedanta teaching given in the Upanishads. This is a modern re-writing of the vedantic teaching.

Vedanta usually uses the rope and snake metaphor, eg, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes in Who Am I?:

Q. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
A. When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.

Q. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
A. There will not be.

Q. Why?
If the mind, which is the cause (and base) of all knowledge (all objective knowledge) and all action, subsides, the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) will cease. Just as the knowledge of the rope, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the knowledge of the snake, the superimposition, goes, so the realization of Self (swarupa-darsanam), which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) which is a superimposition, ceases.

And later from the same text:

When the mind comes out (rises) from Self, the world appears. Therefore, when the world appears, Self will not appear; and when Self appears (shines), the world will not appear.

And later:

The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry Who am I?’. The thought ‘Who am I?’ (which is but a means for turning our attention Selfwards), destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.

And later:

By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases. When the mind (the attention), which is subtle, goes out through the brain and sense-organs (which are gross), the names-and-forms (the objects of the world), which are gross, appear; when it abides in the heart (its source, Self), the names-and-forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the heart (through the above-described means of fixing our attention in Self), not allowing it to go out, alone is called ‘Selfwardness’ (ahamukham) or ‘introversion’ (antarmukham). Allowing it to go out from the heart alone is called ‘extroversion’ (bahirmukham). When the mind thus abides in the heart, the ‘I’ (the thought ‘I’, the ego), which is the root of all thoughts, having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine.

And later:

The place (or state) where even the slightest trace of the thought ‘I’ does not exist, alone is Self (swarupam). That alone is called ‘Silence’ (maunam). To be still (summa iruppadu) in this manner alone is called ‘seeing through (the eye of) knowledge’ (jnana-drishti). To be still is to make the mind subside in Self (through Self-attention). Other than this, knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times (past, present and future), knowing events in distant places – all these can never be jnana-drishti (knowledge realisation).

And later:

What really exists is Self (atma-swarupam) alone. The world, soul and God are superimpositions in it like the silver in the mother-of-pearl; these three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.

🙏🙏🙏