A very important point is that when two angles exist for a concept, you should not take any angle as the sole true angle. You cannot also take both the angles in one time as one angle.
You have to take each angle separately giving equal importance to both angles and then only the original true concept gets perfect correlation in two sides.
Here's one good example. The creation is unreal from the angle of God and the same creation is simultaneously real from the angle of a human soul. You can't say that the creation is real or unreal or ‘real and unreal’ or ‘neither real nor unreal’. All these four possibilities become wrong.
Here, you have to say that the true concept can't be projected without its corresponding angle.
You must say that this concept can be told with reference to its corresponding angle only.
Now, you can say that the creation is unreal with respect to God and the same creation is real with respect to the soul since the soul is a part of the creation.
The basic logic here is that unreal (creation) is not real with reference to real (God) and the same unreal (creation) is real with reference to unreal (soul) since the soul is a part of the creation. Unreal can be unreal before real and cannot be unreal to another unreal.
Hence, you can't say simply that creation is real or unreal without reference.
Hence, Shankara called this creation as Mithyaa, which is different from real and unreal (Sadasat vilakshanaa mithyaa). It means that it can't be told as real or unreal without the reference. The pot is real with reference to the spectator. The same pot is unreal with reference to the mud with which it is made.
Source - http://www.universal-spirituality.org/msg25032017.html