The second degree is the self-display of very being in an epiphany containing in itself all the active, necessary and divine manifestations, as well as all the passive, contingent and mundane manifestations. This degree is named the * First Emanation " because it is the first of all the manifestations of the Very Being , and above it there is no other degree than that of the ' Unmanifested ' — Wittgenstein

God's mercy and love keeps the universe in a state of pseudo existence.

the universe is brought to the realm of psuedo existence from non-existence, but it has never tasted absolute existence which belongs to God only

I haven't experienced anything like that but l have come close to experiencing annihilation in the remembrance of God. — Wittgenstein

According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?

Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts?

They surely don't exist in the same way we do. It's not weird to assign different categories/degrees to existence itself.

the universe exists but in relation to God [...]

l wish l was capable of loving God

Must have been a scary feeling. Being absorbed by the whole? Or was the feeling a great one?

Two basic steps:
A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.

Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.

Damn Plato — Wittgenstein

I don't think it's easy to proof the existence of the universe or even yourself if you want to go down that path.

He should have wasted less time on philosophy and spent more time on love before condemning it and if love is a mental illness,

Neither God's existence

Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge

Have you ever thought that, the musicians, artists, poets also have something to teach you about life. They are not here to entertain you. Learn from them — Wittgenstein

Once you know it's not possible to proof the existence of anyone ( yourself, the universe and God ) . You stop with the childish disputes of theism vs atheism. — Wittgenstein

Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking

You see the world with what's in you. — Wittgenstein

Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking — javi2541997

Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.

After reading the works of great philosophers ,eastern and western . I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. — Wittgenstein

The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

For Ibn Arabi, hell isn't a bad place for those who are destined to reside in it. — Wittgenstein

I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. — Wittgenstein

I would have thought that these kinds of transcendent 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?

The verification of mystical knowledge has got nothing to do with philosophy as its beyond its reach. — Wittgenstein

However, it's also true that this insight is essentially incompatible with modernity, which is grounded in the assumption that there is no 'vertical dimension' corresponding to the realm of quality, which the OP refers to, and which is the subject of the OP also. That is why most of the modern exponents of the perennial philosophy are hostile to the idea of modernity. (See Mark Sedgewick, Against the Modern World for a critical history and analysis.)

The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

Mystical experience is available for everyone and the qualitative difference we find isn't due to the less capable nature of some people to find wisdom, it's due to their lack of commitment in finding the truth. — Wittgenstein

I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. — Wittgenstein

I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?

From earliest times, Muslim philosophers recognized that haqq—truth, reality, rightness—was basic to the quest for wisdom and the happiness of the soul. Already al-Kindî, at the beginning of his most famous work, On First Philosophy, writes that the goal of the philosopher is to reach haqq and to practice haqq. Scholars translate the word here and in similar contexts as “truth”, but doing so suggests that the issue was logical and epistemological, when in fact it was ontological and existential; for the philosophers, the goal of the quest for wisdom was transformation of the soul, and that could not be achieved simply by logic and argumentation. Al-Kindî’s statement is in fact an early definition of tahqîq, and the term itself became common in philosophical texts, though it seldom has the same urgency that it has in Ibn ‘Arabî’s works. For him it is the guiding principle of all knowledge and activity and the highest goal to which a human soul can aspire. It means knowing the truth and reality of the cosmos, the soul, and human affairs on the basis of the Supreme Reality, al-Haqq; knowing the Supreme Reality inasmuch as it reveals itself in the haqqs of all things; and acting in keeping with these haqqs at every moment and in every situation. In short, the “realizers” (muhaqqiqûn) are those who fully actualize the spiritual, cosmic, and divine potential of the soul (Chittick 2005, chap. 5).

Some of the implications of tahqîq can be understood when it is contrasted with its conceptual opposite, taqlîd, which means imitation or following authority. Knowledge can be divided into two sorts, which in Arabic were often called naqlî, transmitted, and ‘aqlî, intellectual; or husûlî, acquired, and hudûrî, presential. Transmitted knowledge is everything that one can learn only by imitating others, like language, culture, scripture, history, law, and science. Intellectual knowledge is what one comes to know by realizing its truth within oneself, like mathematics and metaphysics, even if these are initially learned by imitation. Mullâ Sadrâ calls intellectual knowledge “non-instrumental” (al-ghayr al-âlî), because it accrues to the soul not by the instruments of sense perception, imagination, and rational argumentation, but by the soul’s conformity with reason or intelligence (‘aql), which, in its fullest reality, is nothing but the shining light of the Real. In short, Ibn ‘Arabî, like many of the Islamic philosophers, holds that real knowledge cannot come from imitating others, but must be discovered by realization, which is the actualization of the soul’s potential. Ibn ‘Arabî differs from most philosophers in maintaining that full realization can only be achieved by following in the footsteps of the prophets.

Whence does 'other-worldly guidance' originate? Isnt that the meaning of 'revealed truth', that being the kind of insight which by implication is not spontaneously available to the untrained?

Again, there are definitely resonances with the ideal of 'self-realisation' as taught by Advaita Vedanta or 'realisation of the true nature' by Buddhists. The term 'realisation' is loaded or highly ramified, without a counterpart in secular discourse.

Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him — Wittgenstein