The question of why God would create strikes me as a trap for the mystic, because it invites her to commit to a psychological metaphor for God. If none of the metaphors should be taken seriously, that means we have very little understanding of God's character.

The point I'm making in this article and in some other ones is that a great deal of human experience drives us to take seriously the possibility that God in any monistic system would be very much like a human tyrant. Practically all of human history, politics, and psychology supports that judgment.

The mystic insists that none of the metaphors is adequate, including the comparison to tyrannical kings, but in that case the mystic has no answer at all to the question of why God creates a universe, why he hides, and why he creates this particular, seemingly amoral, indifferent, and physical plane. The moment you start answering that question, even just by hinting that God is playing or putting on a show, you're implying that God has a certain character, which means you're appealing to an anthropocentric metaphor.