Illusionism about the world carries direct practical weight wherever it is held seriously, since if the everyday world is not ultimately real, the rational response is not to chase satisfaction within it but to seek release from mistaking it for what matters, which is exactly the logic behind Advaita's emphasis on renunciation and direct realization over ritual achievement or worldly success.
Buddhism is sometimes classed alongside Advaita here, but the comparison needs care: Buddhist teaching on the impermanence and dependent nature of phenomena is not identical to Advaita's maya doctrine, since Buddhism generally avoids positing any underlying real substance, Brahman or otherwise, that the illusion conceals, making the two positions genuine rivals rather than the same claim in different vocabulary. Realist critics, both religious and secular, press the same practical worry from the opposite side: a doctrine that treats suffering, injustice, and ordinary moral effort as ultimately unreal risks undermining the motivation to address them, a charge Advaita's own tradition has answered in various ways but never fully closed off. Advaita's own defenders reply that the charge gets the practical order backward: it is precisely by seeing through attachment to the transient self and its transient concerns that a life of clear, unselfish ethical action becomes possible at all, rather than a life driven by the very egoic grasping the doctrine of maya diagnoses as the deeper problem.