This is a fair point. I don’t really like this metaphor, because I don’t want to belittle someone else’s experience of their spiritual path, but the mainstream ideas you call attention to are what I call “baby food” for the soul. It’s a good first step, but one shouldn’t stop there.

I believe there are logical implications to concept of the Atman, which are too often not explored in modern spirituality. Indeed, you are correct to point out that the Golden Rule is a succinct and simple statement of how one should act, enlightened or not, and that is its power and truth. If one truly identifies with the Atman, how can they not see themselves in others? How could they not treat others as themselves? To do otherwise would be a betrayal of self, and a sure sign of immaturity in the path.

Identifying with the Atman also leads one to recognition of the paradox of simultaneously being a separate embodied human self and the all-encompassing Atman, which to me is really the “soul” that embodies all that exists. It is the soul that I share with everything else.

Kinda like those old “hair club for men” commercials where the guy says “not only am I the CEO, but I’m also a customer”, or something to that effect. The point is we can be two things at once. In fact, we are many things at once. It feels paradoxical when viewed as an ego, but I don’t see any logical reason why we can’t be both. And if we are both individual and all-being, then we have a moral imperative to attend to both aspects of our existence.

It’s fine to ignore the wider manifestations of Atman, if that’s what your spirit needs to heal its wounds. But if one stops there, then one has stopped growing and learning. One has not finished following these ideas to their logical conclusion; which again you’re correct in saying is, “love thy neighbor as thyself”