The more the underlying Self or Source is reflected in particular things, including our egos, the less the latter are illusory, in which case mysticism isn't so subversive or apocalyptic. Mysticism would rest more on some word games about whether "illusion" means "unreal" or "emergent reality." This kind of monistic mysticism might revert to pantheism.

In so far as the Self is reflected in particulars only imperfectly, we'd have dualistic mysticism, as in Plato's or the Gnostic's kind, in which case the mystic should love the Self more than the illusory world of particulars (diabolical copies).

The spirituality I was talking about begins with the assumption that the ego/mind/personality isn't real and that we should stop identifying with it to prevent our unnecessary disappointments.

But the real question is whether the most radical forms of mysticism are subversive or whether they can be coopted by unenlightened society and made to justify our egoistic pursuits after all, as in our searches for personal happiness, wealth, power, and pleasure.

Hindus certainly try to have it both ways.