Something I found intriguing about your article was how well you summarized Buddhist thinking on both god and self, im not sure if that was intentional. If it was not intentional, then perhaps this is where you might also find a little resistance to your concept.

A buddhist view would agree with everything, including that mind itself has no attributes , and this does translate into “nothingness”, it does not translate if you’re attempting to argue against the universe emerging from consciousness, why?

Because this “nothingness” that is mind or consciousness is not the same type of “nothing” that is the opposite of “something” at all, it simply means that mind needs form for “self reference”. Mind is a verb, not a noun.

So what you actually did was do a pretty good job of arguing for what they call idealism in the west but in Buddhism this is called non duality and it does requires a universe to emerge from mind, both yours, mine, and ours.

I note the irony 😅