Hinduism includes a sprawling synthesis that's supposed to coopt the ascetic's moksha tradition into secular and religious forms of happiness. Hinduism is supposed to represent all paths towards enlightenment, recognizing that one size doesn't fit all here. But the danger is that those on the lower, more compromised paths lose sight of the main goal, so Hinduism can become an excuse to remain unenlightened. That's partly what the Buddhist critique was for, to streamline the process and to cut out the hypocrisy.

The point is you can find anything in Hinduism, if you look hard enough. Thus, the quote you give is the typical compromising synthesis that nevertheless holds out enlightenment as the telos. There are levels of enlightenment that are all supposed to lead to the absolute, uncompromising kind.

What are these popular myths you keep talking about? I'm referring to elements of Eastern spirituality.

The notion of a "fallen" world is Western, but Maya and Samsara are Eastern equivalents, and there was likely historical crossover between them, as McEvilley shows in The Shape of Ancient Thought.

Physical death would be real for Eastern mystics, but that would be a "reality" in the realm of material illusions. When you identify with the underlying consciousness or causal totality that unites everything, seeing through the ruse of multiplicity, the realm of becoming, and all perceptual and conceptual illusions, you no longer care about the body's death since you don't take yourself to be just that body.

It would be like caring if you lose an eyelash or trim your fingernail and lose that tiny part of your body. The whole body would be analogous to the universal totality, since if you're really the whole, why care if one of the parts seems to change into something else? Those changes, including the so-called death of bodies, minds, or personal selves would be unreal from the enlightened perspective.

How is any of that just a popular myth? Do you know how elementary this is in Eastern philosophy and religion?