Absolutely right. Advaita has a name for it — ‘Mitya’.

Interesting. I would call it advaita (non-dual).

Reality of Self is non-dual.

Yeah, some people like to stick a big “S” on there. It seems very misleading to call it Self. What seems to be happening is so impersonal. There’s no other, so “Self” is meaningless. If I was to call non-duality “self,” I would have to say “self with no other” (i.e. not self).

When an appearance like snake (unreal) is projected on the rope (real), it is Mitya; until the snake is negated.

Interesting. I would say that the rope is both real an unreal and that the self cannot see the unreal part, so the rope seems only real and limited (a snake). When there is no witness, what is revealed is the wholeness of non-duality: the rope is both real and unreal — fulfilling for no one, fulfilling with no witness.

But the analogy of the snake and the rope make it seem like a much bigger difference than it really is. There’s almost no difference. In fact, it’s exactly the same.

Reality is not an illusion. What appears upon reality is an ‘illusion’, because it is unreal.

It doesn’t seem that the self illusion adds anything at all to what seems to be happening. It’s just an extremely subtle misunderstanding. It’s the subtle and illusory taking of a perspective in what seems to happening. In reality, there is no possible perspective in wholeness. What could possibly witness everything? There’s no vantage-point to witness everything from. So there is no possible witness to what seems to be happening.