I think Wittgenstein has a kind-of-religious side, but that it is more implied than stated. That statement I called out from @Angelo Cannata explains it well: 'It is not necessary to believe in the objective existence of supernatural things to be mystical. You can be open to the idea of things beyond science without framing these things into the mental scheme of objective existence.'

Compare that with a passage from the contemporary Zen teacher, Nishijima Roshi (d. 2012)

The Universe is, according to philosophers who base their beliefs on idealism, a place of the spirit. Other philosophers whose beliefs are based on a materialistic view, say that the Universe is composed of the matter we see in front of our eyes.

Buddhist philosophy takes a view which is neither idealistic nor materialistic; Buddhists do not believe that the Universe is composed of only matter. They believe that there is something else other than matter. But there is a difficulty here; if we use a concept like 'spirit' to describe that 'something else other than matter', people are prone to interpret Buddhism as some form of spiritualistic religion and think that Buddhists must therefore believe in the actual existence of spirit. So it becomes very important to understand the Buddhist view of the concept 'spirit'. I am careful to refer to spirit as a concept here because in fact Buddhism does not believe in the actual existence of spirit.

So what is this something else other than matter which exists in this Universe? If we think that there is a something which actually exists other than matter, our understanding will not be correct; nothing physical exists outside of matter....Some people explain the Universe as a universe based on matter. But there also exists something which we call value or meaning. A Universe consisting only of matter leaves no room for value or meaning in civilizations and cultures. Matter alone has no value ¹. We can say that the Universe is constructed with matter, but we must also say that matter works for some purpose. So in our understanding of the Universe we should recognize the existence of something other than matter. We can call that something spirit, but if we do we should remember that in Buddhism, the word 'spirit' is a figurative expression for value or meaning. We do not say that spirit exists in reality; we use the concept only figuratively.

(This is why Wittgenstein is sometimes compared with Zen philosophy.)

The way I parse it, is that 'existence' is what 'the transcendent' is transcendent in respect of. So all of the questions about whether [God/transcendent/beyond] 'exist' are empty. But what is beyond existence is not non-existent.

-----------------------

1. 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists—and if it did exist, it would have no value.'

The way I parse it, is that 'existence' is what 'the transcendent' is transcendent in respect of. So all of the questions about whether [God/transcendent/beyond] 'exist' are empty. But what is beyond existence is not non-existent. — Wayfarer

Fuck... if I only smoked hooch, that would be a great three sentence combination to ponder stoned.

It is not necessary to believe in the objective existence of supernatural things to be mystical. — Wayfarer

Yes, I've often felt the need to say almost the same thing many times over the years.

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. — The Buddha, Kaccāyanagotta Sutta

is Buddhism "real" as conceived by Buddhists in the light of evolution also being "real" or true?

Wittgenstein's mysticism? Hopefully not an undiagnosed brain tumor! :grin:

is Buddhism "real" — Sapien1

Lemme take a stab at it.

Anatta! Buddhism negates itself - it has no essence that we could grasp, that would persist and in that sense jibes with Wittgenstein's philosophy. Buddhism has no purpose beyond its utility as a tool to understand that plain and simple fact. Just like how language performs seppuku (in Wittgenstein's hands), Buddhism self-destructs! Anicca!

If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.. — Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

deleted

You might find this article helpful.