Though Dasein is caught up in the care of everyday living in his epistemological, relational and existential concerns, being transcendence by his very nature, he has a destiny that goes beyond these everyday concerns. Dasein is not merely called to be a being-in-the-world, but is destined to be a being that is open to Being. Though Dasein cannot run away from his ‘in-the-world-existence’, he is called to transcend the former and be a being-toward-Being. This chapter attempts to elaborate the goal, the way and the attainment of Dasein’s existence that is centered on Being.

The German term ‘Geviert’ is related to the German term ‘Vier’, which means number four. The prefix ‘ge’ has collective signification, so the term ‘Geviert’, as used by Heidegger, is translated as the foursome,1 the quadrate2 and the fourfold.3 Heidegger clarifies the notion of the fourfold in relation to the thing (das Ding). In the Heideggerian sense of the term, a thing must be understood in relation to its being. It involves a viewing of the thing in relation to the four ‘aspects’ of Being, viz. the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. ‘Earth’ and ‘sky’ con-stitute the natural ‘component’ of Being, while ‘divinities’ and ‘mortals’ constitute the divine and the human ‘components’ of Being respectively.4 For Heidegger, a thing’s being or essence is under-stood when we consider it in relation to all these aspects of Being. For example, let us take a flower. It can be considered as an object that is grown, sold and bought. But this way of looking at the flower does not present its authentic being whose essence can be understood only in relation to the fourfold: the earth in which the flower is grown; the sky which has given it sun and rain; the divinities in whose honor it is placed at the altar; and the mortals to whom it brings joy.5 Thus, it is the unity of the fourfold, the four facets of Being, that constitutes the being of a flower. This unity of the earth, the sky, the mortals and the divinities in the thing, Heidegger calls the ‘thinging of the thing’.6

Now we could spell out in detail what each of these ‘elements’ stands for. The earth is that which constructively supports the growing and blossoming plants, besides rendering fruitfulness in them. It is the earth which preserves the rock and the water. It is on the earth that animal life and all other forms of life continue. The sky is the path of the sun and the moon. It is in the sky the stars shine. Changes in season, the light and the dusk of the day, gloom and glow of the night, the good and bad weather, the moving clouds and the blue depth of the ether -- all happen in the sky. The divinities (Goett-lichen) are the messengers of the Divine (Goettheit).7 Out of the holy sway of the Divine they appear and withdraw into concealment. Mortals are human beings; they are called mortals because they can die. But animals are not mortals, for they perish;8 only men die. Death is the shrine of nothing and so it can never exist; yet it pre-sences the mystery of Being. Mortals are called mortals not because their earthly life comes to an end, but because they are capable of death as death. Mortals are those that have a relationship of pre-sencing to Being as Being.9

"Appropriation" appropriates man and Being in their essential togetherness."10 This essential togetherness between Being and man is understood by Heidegger in relation to the principle of identity: ‘A’ is ‘A’. Referring to the Parmenedian sense of identity, Heidegger translates this principle as ‘A’ is the same as (to auto) ‘A’. The ‘is’ and the ‘to auto’ in the principle of identity suggest that every being is, in itself, the same with itself. In other words, every being has an identity, viz., the unity with itself that is brought about by Being. Thus, the principle of identity speaks of the Being of beings which holds beings in their unity and identity.11

Having stated that the principle of identity refers to the Being of beings, Heidegger refers to the fragment of Parmenedes.12 The fragment reads: "To gar auto noein estin to kei einai" which is rendered into English as "thinking and Being (das Sein) are the same".13 Like any other translation of pre-Socratic terms and defini-tions, this translation is based on metaphysical categories, in which the original Parmenedian meaning is lost.14 Heidegger understands the Greek ‘einai’ in the original sense of ‘physis’, viz., emerging abiding power. In other words, ‘einai’ means Being as finite pre-sence (Anwesenheit).15 The term ‘noein’ means "receptive coming to stand."16

Heidegger concludes that ‘to auto’ (the same) understood in relation to ‘einai’ (Being) and ‘noein’ (thinking/man)17 is not only that of equality (Gleichgueltigkeit) or of indifference (Einerleiheit), but rather is a belonging-together (Zusammengehorigkeit).18 Thus, speaking of identity as belonging-together Heidegger says: " We must acknowledge the fact that in the earliest period of thinking, long before thinking had arrived at a principle of identity, identity itself speaks out in a pronouncement (the fragment of Parmenedes) which rules that: thinking (man) and Being belong-together in the same and by virtue of the same."19

‘Belonging-together’ can be understood in two different ways based on the emphasis we give to each of the two words present in the compound. If we see in this compound ‘belonging’ as determined by ‘together’, the stress would be on unity. In this sense ‘belonging-together’ would mean to be placed as a part of a unity, a manifold or a system. This is what metaphysical thinking refers to as ‘con-nectio’, i.e. a necessary connection or a causal relation of one with another.20 Such a way of looking is onto-theo-logical, in that it is concerned with the beingness of beings, and the highest being as the cause of all other beings.21 ‘Belonging-together’ can also be seen as ‘together’ being determined by ‘belonging’. In this sense ‘belonging-together’ is not understood as the unity of togetherness of the related into a manifold or system, but rather as the related belonging to each other in the same.22 In other words, there exists an appropriating relationship between the related whereby they let each other enter into their realms by their belonging-together.

Understood in the former sense of ‘belonging-together’, for Being and man this amounts only to a causal relationship. But considered in the latter sense, it means that Being and man belong-together in the realm of Ereignis. It would mean that both Being and man hold each other in the belonging-together. Man, though an entity in the totality of beings, is distinctive in that he as a thinker of Being and a dweller in the nearness of Being, is open to Being and stands, as it were, face-to-face with Being. Thus, man is oriented towards Being. In this orientation and openness towards Being man listens and responds to Being.23 Heidegger writes on man’s belonging to Being as follows: "Man is essentially this relationship of responding to Being and he is only this. This ‘only’ does not mean a limitation, but rather an excess. A belonging to Being prevails within man, a belonging which listens to Being because it is appropriated . . . to Being."24

Belonging-together is not only man’s belonging to Being, but also Being’s belonging to man. The presencing of Being to man is not one of mere causality or an occasional event. Being presences and abides in man by making a claim on him. Thus, Being draws (an-geht) man near it. Such an occurrence of Being as Presence (Anwe-senheit) can come-to-pass only when Being appropriates man and finds in him a clearing place for its presencing.25 On this point Hei-degger remarks: "Being itself . . . belongs to us; for only with us can Being be present as Being, i.e. become present."26

Therefore, "man and Being are appropriated to each other. They belong to each other."27 This appropriation involves a mutual gifting of man to Being, Being to man and an entry into the realms of each other. It, in turn, brings about in man and Being a genuine and deeper belonging to each other.28 The mutual belonging-together is a dedicating (Zuegnen) and an appropriating (Vereignen) of man and Being to each other. Belonging -together, for Heidegger, is a more primordial type of relationship and is the basis of all the other types of relationships metaphysics speaks about between man and Being, such as the causal, etc.29 No metaphysical thinking can help us to ex-perience this belonging together of Being and man, which can be ex-perienced only when one enters the event of appropriation (Erei-gnis).30

Heidegger considers Being (das Sein) as always the Being of beings. Therefore, every being (Seiende) must be understood in relation to Being. This means that we cannot speak of Being as having a separate and independent existence as a reality, because then Being would be a ‘being’, however great it may be. Heidegger says that ". . . it belongs to the truth of Being that Being may never ‘be’ without beings, and that a being is never without Being."31 Therefore, Being is always Being of beings and beings are always beings of Being. The genitive or the ‘of’ in the former is an objective genitive, while in the latter it is a subjective genitive.32 Though Being and beings are so closely related to each other that we cannot think of one without the other, yet the relationship between Being and beings is one of difference.33 The genitive ‘of’, taken subjectively and objectively, indicates a difference.34 Heidegger calls this an on-tological difference by which he means not a mere rational dis-tinction35 between Being and beings, but a difference as difference.36 Heidegger is of the view that metaphysics has failed to consider the ontological difference. It only looks at different elements of the difference between Being and beings, such as beings as grounded in Being, without ever questioning the difference as difference.37 For-getting this ontological difference between Being and beings is the same as the forgetfulness of Being which "is the forgetfulness of the difference between Being and entities."38 So, we think of Being genuinely ". . . when we think of it in its difference with beings and of beings in their difference with Being."39 In other words, in questioning the difference as difference Heidegger asks about the ‘between’ (das Zwischen) of Being and beings and the way in which this ‘between’ is to be understood.40

In order to understand the ‘between’ or the difference as such between Being and beings, one must encounter the difference face to face. This involves a ‘step back’ from the metaphysical categories. As we mentioned earlier, Being is always Being of beings, i.e., Being ‘is’ in beings. This ‘is’ of Being in beings is not static, but transitive or active. So Being is of such a nature that it is ‘coming-over (Ue-berkommnis),41 the manner in which Being reaches beings. This ‘coming-over does not mean that Being leaves its place and comes into beings, as if beings were without Being first, and subsequently were approached by Being. Rather, Being’s ‘coming-over’ consists in Being’s giving of itself over to beings and thereby un-conceals or reveals (ent-borgend) beings in themselves. Beings themselves comes-to-presence only in and through this ‘coming-over’ and unconcealing process of Being. On the part of beings, this is an ‘arrival’ (Ankunft)42 in which beings in their being are un-concealed. Thus, the ‘coming-over’ of Being into beings is, at the same time, an ‘arrival’ of beings. Just as the ‘coming-over’ of Being is the un-concealing of beings, so also the ‘arrival’ of beings is the ‘con-cealment (Bergend) of Being. Therefore, the un-concealment of beings is the concealment of Being. This ‘coming-over’ and re-vealing beings on the part of Being and the ‘arrival’ and concealing Being on the part of beings is a single process, which Heidegger calls Unterschied (differentiating). The process of Unterschied is an auseinander-zueinander-tragen, i.e., a process in which the ‘coming-over’ of Being and the ‘arrival’ of beings are kept apart, while both bearing on each other. In other words, Being and beings are turned towards and away from each other. Heidegger calls this process Austrag (perdurance).43

Heidegger, thus, characterizes the ontological difference as the difference between ‘coming-over’ and ‘arrival’. The difference grants a ‘between’ (das Zwischen), viz., the perdurance in which there prevails a clearing. In this clearing Being ‘comes-over’ into beings, thereby, un-concealing them in their being; while beings ‘arrive’ in their being and in the process conceal Being.44 In this process beings are grounded in Being. To quote Heidegger: "In as much as Being becomes present as Being of beings, as the difference, as perdurance (Austrag), the separateness and mutual relatedness of grounding and of accounting for endure, Being grounds beings, and beings, as what is most of all, account for Being. One (Being) comes over the other, one (beings) arrives in the other."45 Thus, Unters-chied (differentiating) is a revealing-concealing perdurance, which is a mutual circling (Umeinanderkreisen) of Being and beings around each other.46 This is a clearing (Lichtung) in which beings are grounded in Being,47 and in which Being gives itself as the ‘difference’ historically as revealing and concealing.48

Heidegger speaks of the giving (Geben) of Being as ‘pre-sencing’ (Anwesen). The presencing is naturally in the present (Gegenwart) and is related to what is present (das Anwesende). So, Being as presencing, understood in relation to what is present, brings what is present to openness or unconcealment. Thus, giving of Being as presencing is a letting-presence (Anwesenlassen), i.e. letting what is present be open in the presencing of Being.49 The letting-presence of what is present50 lets what is present into the open by letting it belong to the presencing of Being.51 This letting-present is the giving of Being.52

Having clarified Being’s presencing as giving, we must raise the question of the nature of the giving (presencing) of Being. When we analyzed the notion of ontological difference between Being and beings, we pointed out that Being’s ‘coming-over’ (Ueberkommnis)53 to entities reveals beings, and at their ‘coming-on’ (An-kommen) or ‘arrival’ (An-kunft), the Being is concealed. In ‘coming-over’ as the presencing (Anwesen) and giving (Geben) of Being, there is an in-built concealment, which belongs to the essence of Being’s giving. Thus, it can be truly said: "In sending itself, Being withdraws; in giving itself Being withholds; in presencing itself Being absences; in revealing itself, Being conceals."54 So, for Heidegger, the giving of Being is a ". . . giving (that) holds itself back and withdraws."55 He calls this giving a sending (Schicken) of Being.56 Heidegger sees history in the light of this giving or sending so that history is always the history of Being. Thus, what constitutes the history (Geschichte) of Being is the sending (Schicken) or the giving (Geben) of Being.57

From what we have said, we can conclude that the history of Being (Seinsgeschichte) is not essentially an occurrence (Gesche-hen), though occurrence is involved in history; but fundamentally it is the sending of Being (Geschick von Seins) in which Being holds itself back (an sich halten) in favor of what is sent, i.e. beings. ‘To hold back’ or ‘to withhold’ is used by Heidegger in the sense of the Greek term ‘epoché’.58 Thus, we can speak of various epochs of the sending of Being. In other words, history as epochal is a fundamen-tal characteristic of the sending of Being. Heidegger does not speak of Being as an epochal sending, and so we cannot speak of different epochs of Being or, to put it in Heidegger’s words: ". . . the actual holding back (epoché) of itself (Being) in favor of . . . the gift (beings), that is, of Being with regard to the grounding of beings." 59 In other words, ". . . as it reveals itself in beings, Being withdraws," 60 which withdrawal belongs to the sending of Being.

Now, that we have clarified the epochal nature of the sending of Being, viz., the history of Being, we must ask the reason for epochal nature of the sending or the history of Being. This leads Heidegger to analyze the notion of time. The presencing (Anwesen) of Being has a reference to the present (Gegenwart) and is also an extension (Reichen) in the three modes of time, viz., the ‘what-has-been’ (das Gewesen), the ‘what-is-not-yet’ and the present. The ‘what-has-been’ is not merely ‘that-which-is-past’ (das Vergangene), but presences in its absence and still concerns man. In other words, the presencing is extended in the ‘what-has-been’ in the mode of presencing the absence of ‘what-has-been’. Presencing, as the absence of ‘what-is-not-yet’ (future) is extended in the mode of pre-sencing as coming-toward-man. Thus, ‘what-is-not-yet’ in some way is already present in its absence and concerns man. Presencing is extended in the present as presencing what is present and so lasts (wahrt) in the sense of abiding (verweilen) or being extended (reichen) in man, as the present, the past as ‘what-has-been’ and the future as ‘what-is-not-yet’.61 The mutual extending brings together the three ecstases of time and lets them belong together. In the mutual extending of the three there comes about a ‘lighting up of openness’.62 The unity of these three dimensions of time by con-tinuous mutual extending is an interplay (Zuspiel), which Heidegger refers to as a ‘simultaneous time’ (das Gleich-Zeitige).63 By bringing these three dimensions into a mutual interplay the exten-ding determines all the other three, and is, as it were, the fourth dimension. "True time," says Heidegger, "is four dimensional."64

From our analysis of the nature of time, it is clear that though time is simultaneous by its fourth dimension of the mutual extending of the three ecstases of time, still it gives itself as presencing (An-wesen) and absencing (Ab-wesen). In other words, the presencing of ‘what-has-been’ and ‘what-is-not-yet’ is in the mode of absencing,65 while the presencing of the present is in the mode of presencing.66 To quote Heidegger: "We call the giving which gives the true time, an extending which opens and conceals. As extending is itself a giving, the giving of a giving is concealed in true time."67

Thus, Being sends and time extends. The sending of Being and extending of time belong together in the realm of Ereignis.68 As presencing Being sends, while as the realms of openness (Bereich des oeffenen) time is that in and through which Being’s sending can show itself. Thus, Being and time are so interrelated as the sending of Being always shows itself in time. In his letter to William J. Richardson, Heidegger says: "Presencing (Being) is inherent in the lighting-up of self-concealment (Time). The lighting up of self-concealment (Time) brings forth the presencing (Being)."69 In other words, as presencing Being is always temporal in its presencing. It is only because the presencing or sending of Being is temporal that Being shows itself as a sending that is concealed. Being’s presencing in relation to the ecstasis of ‘what-has-been’ (past) and to the ‘what-is-not-yet’ (future) are in the mode of absencing (Ab-wesen). The reason why Being -- by its ‘coming-over’ to beings, thereby revealing beings -- withholds or conceals itself is due to the temporal nature of Being’s giving or presencing. As soon as Being lights up beings, the moment of lighting-up becomes the ecstasis of the past, and being is withdrawn as the lighting-up. Thus, the epochal or with-drawal aspect of Being’s sending is nothing other than the temporal character of Being’s sending.70 Since Being’s giving is temporal, the history of Being is epochal. As Being always withdraws in favor of the ‘given’ due to the temporal character of its sending, the history of Being as the presencing or giving of Being always remains finite.

Each of the fourfold -- the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals -- belong together by way of a simple unified fourfold. Each of the four mirrors in its own way the presence of the others. This mirroring each other, on the one hand, frees each of the fourfold so that each could be itself in the unity of the four. On the other hand, they hold each other in such a way that their essential being is to-wards one another. This, in turn, leads to the mutual appropriation of the four. None of the four insists upon its own separate particu-larity. Rather "each is expropriated in the mutual appropriation, into its own being. This expropriative appropriating is the mirror-play (Spiegel-spiel) of the fourfold. Out of the fourfold, the simple one-fold of the four is ventured."71 Thus, the mirror-play of the fourfold does not stress so much on the four, but on the onefold of the four.

For Heidegger the mirror-play of the simple onefold of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals constitutes the world. The fouring, i.e. the unity of the four in the appropriating mirror-play, is the worlding of the world.72 Thus, the ‘thing’, as that which gathers the fourfold in their appropriating mirror-play is what, Heidegger calls the thinging of the thing. Since, world is the inter-relation of the fourfold, the thinging of the thing is the worlding of the world. Heidegger writes on this point:

The four are united primordially in being toward one another, a fourfold. The things let the fourfold of the four stay with them. This gathering . . . letting-stay, is the thinging of the thing. The unitary fourfold of the sky and earth, mortals and divinities, which is stayed in the thinging of the things, we call -- the world. Thinging things are things. Thinging, they gesture -- gestate -- world.73

Thus, for Heidegger, " Things bear world. World grants things."74 The presencing of the world in things in the unity of the fourfold is the worlding (das Welten) of the world. The mirror-play of the four-fold into onefold, Heidegger calls "the ring-dance of appropriating."75

Being, as the worlding of the four, i.e., in its spatial aspect, also manifests the un-concealing and concealing element. Heidegger indicates this by writing the term ‘Being’ (Sein) with a cross mark over it.76 The term ‘Being’ with the cross mark points to the con-cealing dimension of Being, while one without the cross mark shows Being as revealing. Further explaining this symbolic crossing of the term ‘Being’, Heidegger says that this crossing does not merely indicate something that is negative, but rather it refers to the mirror-play of the fourfold. Being in its spatial unfolding in history is the gathering of the fourfold at the place of intersection.77 In other words, the history of Being, in its spatial manifesting is the gathering of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals in their unity. Out of this gathering emerges the worlding process by the mirror-play of the four.

The history of Being is, thus, a time-space event. It comes about as an epochal sending of Being due to the interplay (Zuspiel) of the three ecstases of time, determined by extending (Reichen) and a worlding process by the mirror-play (Spiegel-spiel) of the four-fold, brought about by the fouring of the four.78

To the question of the ‘why’ of the spatio-temporal sending of Being or that of the history of Being as un-concealing and con-cealing, Heidegger says that it is a play of Being. It is a time-space-play which Being sends to man,79 and which is a lighting process in which entities can appear.80 It is a play in which ‘time times’, ‘space spaces’, ‘thing things’ and ‘world worlds’.81 It is a world-play which lets one encounter the temporality of history in the three ecstases of time and its spatiality in the four world regions of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals.82

Speaking on the background of Leibniz’s principle of suffici-ent reason, Heidegger says that there is no ‘why’ to the play of Being: there is no answer to the question of ‘why’. Being presences as giving and as withdrawing; it is a groundless play of Being. It is not a play that is conditioned by the will and the calculative think-ing.83 The play does not allow any causal or planned out patterns,84 but is similar to a child playing draughts.85 Heidegger highlights this point clearly when he says: "It (Being) plays because it plays. The ‘because’ sinks into the play; the play is without ‘why’: it plays while it plays. There remains only play: the highest and the deepest. But this ‘only’ is the all, the one, the unique." 86

The play, says Heidegger, has no parallels among entities.87 The time-space-play of the historical giving of Being can only be understood in the realm of appropriation, as it is a lighting of Being in which the ontological difference is unfolded as the history of Being. The history of Being, as the play of Being, cannot be without man: it is a play of Being with man. Man is not a passive spectator, but a co-player (Mitspieler) with Being. Epochal sending of Being and the worlding process cannot be spoken of without a man as essentially being part of it.

Essential thinking of Being does not merely consists in having an opinion about something. It is neither a representing, nor a devel-oping of conceptual system of thinking with a chain of logical pre-mises which lead to valid and certain conclusions. As it cannot be brought under any logical categories, it is neither practical nor theo-retical; rather it comes to pass before all these distinctions.88 Thus, thinking of Being overcomes onto-theo-logical thinking and lan-guage89 Such a thinking is non-subjective, non-representative and non-logical in the sense of pre-subjective, pre-representative and pre-logical respectively. This means that this thinking is not irra-tional, but pre-rational:90 it is anti-logic, yet not illogical.91 Speaking about his book What is called Thinking? Heidegger says that it not a treatise on thinking. He admonishes his students that they must not think about what thinking is, 92 but rather they should learn to think.93 Heidegger uses many names to refer to this thinking of Being (Seinsdenken): meditative thinking (besinnliches Denken),94 essen-tial thinking (wesenliches Denken),95 primordial thinking (anfaen-liches Denken),96 recollective thinking (andenkendes Denken)97 and courageous thinking (herzhaftes Denken).98

Clarifying the meaning of the title of his book What is Called Thinking?, Heidegger speaks of the four possible ways in which it can be interpreted. Firstly, it can refer to the question about the meaning of the word ‘thinking’. Secondly, it can mean, what think-ing signifies in the history of thought. Thirdly, it can be a question about the pre-requisite needed to think rightly. Fourthly, the question can also mean: "What calls us into thinking?", or "what evokes thinking in us?" 99 Though he recognizes the validity of each of these interpretations, Heidegger holds that the fourth interpre-tation decisively poses the question, in spite of the fact that it is foreign to common understanding.100 The fourth interpretation, viz., "What is it that directs us into thought and gives us direction for thinking?", 101 already pre-supposes that there is a relation between Being and thinking as between the caller and the called.102 Thus, essential thinking involves a call from Being which evokes thought in Dasein and a response from Dasein. In this section, our analysis of the nature of essential thinking will consist in treating it as a call of Being and a response from Dasein.

Heidegger says: "We never come to thoughts. They come to us." 03 Essential thinking is not something which man can do as and when he wants. Man can be an essential thinker only in so far as he stands in the ‘lighting’ of Being.104 In this process, Being is primary for thinking belongs to Being. Dasein is able to think only because he is enabled (vermoegen) to think. The enabling is a favor (Moegen) Being bestows on man,105 thereby presencing man in his essence, i.e., as an essential thinker.

Being enables thinking in man because ‘it wants’ (es bra-ucht)106 thought and ‘there is need for’ thinking. "By reason of its nature Being must itself be served, tended, guarded by thought, hence is ‘in want of’ thought in order to be itself." 107 There is a relationship between Being’s giving (es gibt) and Beings wanting (es braucht).108 Thus, Being’s giving itself is its wanting itself. In wanting itself to be thought, Being gives itself to thought. In this wanting is concealed an appeal that calls forth thought.109 Thus, Being calls man to think. Neither is the Being’s call periodical nor is man’s thinking an occasional human activity, as the former is constant while the latter is essential to man. Man is a thinker only because he is called to think.110

The German term ‘heissen’ (to call) has a variety of meaning, such as invite, instruct, demand and direct. It is related to the term for ‘to get something underway’. The old use of the term ‘heissen’ also means ‘letting reach’ (gelassen lassen). Thus, the term ‘heissen’ in its original use has the notion of ‘helpfulness’.111 The analysis of the term ‘heissen’ clearly points to the fact that which calls us to think helps us to think by giving itself to think. Heidegger says: "What calls us to think, gives food for thought." 112 That which gives food for thought is "that which is eminently thought-worthy" (das Bedenklichste),113 viz., Being, which gives to thought its to-be-thought.

The mode in which Being gives itself to thought is one of withdrawing; in other words, what calls on us to think and gives food for thought gives itself as withdrawing. Withdrawal is not something that is totally negative in the sense of an absence of Being, but it is something real and actual as it is not nothing. It is the presence of Being as absent. When Being withdraws itself from us, it draws us in such a way that we bear the stamp of being drawn toward; thereby we ourselves become pointers towards Being. It is the withdrawing presence of Being that calls man for thinking and looks for thinking in man.114 Thus, calling Dasein to think, Being gives itself to be thought and wants itself to be thought. It draws man to thinking, by withdrawing itself from him, thereby making him a pointer to itself.

In the "Postscript" to What is Metaphysics? Heidegger speaks of the call of Being, which to a certain extent is comparable to the mode of Being’s gift of itself in its withdrawing. Here, it is in the context of anxiety that Being calls Dasein to itself. Anxiety is an experience of Beinglessness (Seinlosigkeit).115 Being is the noiseless voice which makes itself heard in Dasein through the attunement of anxiety. In the attunement of anxiety Dasein may learn to experience Being in the form of non-Being.116 In other words, through anxiety Being lights up in man its own relation to Dasein’s essence. The noiseless voice of Being is a call and an appeal to Dasein to be the place where its truth can be preserved. Heidegger stresses that the call is not Dasein’s doing, but something that comes from the bounty of Being. Thus, the essential thinking is an occurrence of Being which comes from Being’s initiative.117

Though, essentially primordial thinking comes about from the initiative of Being, yet Dasein is not a mere passive agent in the process of responding. Dasein needs to concentrate upon the call of Being. It involves a certain activity in the process of essential thinking.118 Dasein, thus, responds to the voice of Being by a res-ponse that is ‘corresponding’(entsprechend) to the call. The term ‘ correspondence’ (Entsprehung), though used in normal usage as ‘response’, ‘answer’ or ‘reply’, is used by Heidegger in the sense of ‘conformity’ or ‘agreement’.119 So, to correspond to the call of Being is to attune oneself to the call of Being, to ‘echo’ the voice of Being and to be obedient to the voice of Being.120 As Dasein is called to think, the primordial corresponding consists in giving oneself to genuine thinking.121 The call to thinking and the corresponding res-ponse on the part of Being and Dasein, respectively, involve a twofold relationship between Being and Dasein: Being ‘calls’ and ‘gives’; Dasein ‘re-calls’(re-collects) and ‘thanks’. In other words, Being ‘calls’ Dasein to think and ‘gives’ itself as food for thought, while Dasein responds by ‘re-collecting’ in memory the call of Being and ‘thanking’ Being for its gift of itself. This relationship can be substantiated by the etymological relatedness of the word ‘Denken’ (to think) to ‘Gedaechtnis’ (memory) and ‘Danken’ (to thank). The root-word ‘Gedanc’, a middle German word contains the nuances of thinking, memory and thanking.122 We could, now spell out re-collection and thanksgiving as Dasein’s response to the call and giving of Being respectively.

Dasein responds to the call of Being by re-calling (Ge-denken) the gift of Being. The root term ‘Gedanc’, from which ‘Gedaech-tnis’ derives, means the ‘gathering that recalls’.123 Thus, ‘Gedaech-tnis’ consists in a ‘gathering-together’ of the gift of Being thought-fully and holding it in memory. In other words, the gathering-together is a re-collection (An-denken) in memory.124 This consists in Dasein thinking of the source, viz., Being, which is most thought-provoking125 and in the first place called Dasein to think. By thinking as the gift of Being, Dasein gathers-together in memory the thought of Being and lets it rest in the center of his being, viz., the heart (Herz).126 In so doing Dasein ‘keeps’ (verwahrt) and preserves (bewahrt) Being -- that which is most thought-worthy -- from oblivion, i.e., from being forgotten.127 In the process of re-collection, Being becomes present to and real to Dasein, so that the differences of ‘here’, ‘there’, ‘now’ and ‘then’ disappear.128 Thus, by re-collec-tion Dasein responds to Being by offering the center of his being, viz., the heart, as the lighting-up place for Being. Besides, by opening up the world of Being to Dasein and constantly keeping the gift of the call to thinking in memory, re-collection raises in Dasein a sense of gratitude and thanksgiving.

The German root word ‘Gedanc’ means not only memory or re-collection, but also ‘thanks’. Memory and thanksgiving go to-gether and belong together. Thanksgiving emerges in Dasein, when it gathers into his heart the call and giving of Being in re-collective memory. In other words, only in re-collective gathering, i.e. me-mory, is Being, which calls Dasein and gives itself to be thought, thanked. Memory, as re-collection of Being is a thanking of Being. For Heidegger, every memorial service is a thanksgiving service.129

Having shown the relationship between recollection and thanksgiving, we could analyze what thanking is and how Dasein responds to Being by thanking. Being’s supreme gift to the thinker (Dasein) is the very Being by which he is a thinker. By calling to thinking and giving itself as food for thinking, Being makes Dasein the thinker of Being. The best way to respond to this giving of Being is accepting the gift, which would mean that Dasein assumes the call and yields to it. Acceptance is the most original form of thanks-giving. Accepting the gift of Dasein’s nature as the thinker of Being involves giving of oneself to thinking. Thinking is thanksgiving: in thanking Being Dasein thinks of Being, and in the thinking of Being Dasein accepts the gift of existence as the thinker of Being. Thus, for Heidegger, pure thanks lies in that we give ourselves to the thinking of Being.130 From this it follows that our supreme thanksgiving to Being is thinking and our profound thanklessness is thoughtlessness of Being.131 William J. Richardson summarizes thanking as thanks-giving, and what it involves on the part of Dasein as he reaches towards Being as the thinker of Being as follows:

Thinking as thanksgiving (involves Dasein’s ) com-plete acquiescence to Being. This is accomplished when There-Being (Dasein) plays a role of attentive attent-ant of Being in profound and docile re-collec-tion. . . . There-Being (Dasein) must turn to Being, opening itself (himself) up, com-mitting itself (him-self), abandoning itself (himself) to its (his) exigen-cies. . . . It is the responding that is decisive . . . (for) thought . . . becomes authentically functional only in the movement of response.132

- Thinking is experiencing of Being (Erfahrung des Seins). Of all entities, only Dasein can experience the ‘what-it-is’ of Being, when addressed by the voice of Being.133 Essential thinking is consent or readiness (die Bereitschaft) for anxiety. When Being, as Non-Being makes its appeal to Dasein, through the medium of anxiety, Dasein’s response to the call of Being is one of readiness for anxiety. In saying ‘yes’ to the call of Being, Dasein is ready to tread the untrodden region of Being.134 This is self-diffusion: Dasein ‘pours-himself-out’ to the positive lighting of Being. In so doing he becomes a lighting place for Being and its truth as it becomes manifested in things.135

- Thinking is self-surrender, by which Dasein gives his entire essence to Being’s wanting to have a place of disclosure.136

- It is self-assumption, consisting in Dasein being entrusted with the task of assuming the charge of watching over Being. This is accomplished by Dasein’s relationship to Being, which Being itself establishes.137

- Essential thinking is an echoing of the silent voice of Being, to which the response of Dasein resounds with such fidelity that Dasein’s thought is, indeed, an echo of the voice of Being. At the same time, it is Dasein’s own as it stems from Dasein’s freedom.138

- It is docility, and consists in being observant and heedful to the demands of the voice of Being.139 Thinking assists Being to be itself by caring for the need for the place of disclosure in the historical humanity.140

- Thinking is an offering, consisting in Dasein’s self-diffusive surrender to Being. It involves forgoing attachment with the ontic order or calculating thinking and being at home with the funda-mental thought Being brings to pass. Besides, it implies that Dasein takes upon himself the noble poverty of Being which deals with the supremely simple and the intangible. But to this poverty belongs genuine wealth. The paradox of wealth and poverty is proper to thought as offering.141

- Essential thinking is involvement: in spite of his great poverty of being detached from the ontic level of Dasein, yet he maintains continued involvement with entities. It is by thinking that the truth of Being is preserved in beings.142

- Thinking is freedom. Dasein’s self-surrender of himself to Being, though done at the ‘wanting of Being’ (es braucht), is done with complete freedom on the part of Dasein, which lets Being be in and through himself; such a ‘letting-be’ is freedom. Thus, thinking of Being belongs not only to Being, but also to Dasein.143

- It is thanksgiving. The free surrender of Dasein to Being in thinking is not a mere response to Being’s appeal, but a thanksgiving for the bounty of Being’s gift.144

- Thinking is a historical process. The essence of man on whom Being bestows its gift is ‘historical’.145

- Essential thinking is an interrogation. It is a step-by-step advance towards the answer, which, in turn, leads to further ques-tions, thereby probing deeper into the origins of reality.146

All the characteristics we have listed here do not say anything more than what we have said already about essential thinking as a process of Being’s coming towards Dasein and Dasein’s moving towards Being in response. This process is a temporal-historical one and it is achieved by Dasein’s being a lighting-up-place for Being, both in Dasein and in beings.147

Heidegger refers to the state of Dasein, which results from essential thinking as dwelling (Wohnen) and describes it in various ways. He calls it an indwelling (Instaendigkeit)148 and a standing in the openness of Being.149 It is the opening of Dasein for openness 150 and the abiding of Dasein in his ‘origins’ (Herkunft).151 Thus, dwell-ing is Dasein’s ‘ek-sisting’, i.e., standing in the openness of Being. Besides Dwelling is a state in which Dasein is involved with the things in an authentic way. In other words, Dasein builds (bauen) 152 and spares (schonen)153 things in their authentic being. So, in describing the nature of dwelling, in this section, we will consider it as Dasein’s ek-sisting and building.

Traditionally man was considered as a rational animal. Ac-cording to Heidegger, the definition of man as ‘rational animal’ is a metaphysical interpretation of the original Greek description of man "zoion logon echon." 154 This metaphysical statement about the nature of man considers man as a type of animal with the special quality of rationality. Thus, here, man is viewed in terms of anima-lity rather than of humanity.155 This type of thinking about man led to viewing man as a rational animal, a human entity, and a spiritual-bodily entity. In other words, man is considered as an entity among other entities, which has some power of control and manipulation over other beings. Though this way of looking at man is not wrong, it has failed to give the dignity, says Heidegger, that man pos-sesses.156

Since man was thought only in relation to animalitas and not in relation to his true nature, i.e., his humanitas, the real nature of man has not been thought in the history of Western metaphysics. In consequence, man’s true essence is concealed from his own vision. As man did not think of his nature as it is in itself, the homeliness of his own essence is barred from his sight. This, in turn, has led to man’s being away from his home; not knowing his own nature, man could never be at-home-with-himself.157 The metaphysical way of defining man fails to see man and his essence in the light of man’s relationship to Being; but instead man is seen as related to entities. In the process, Being (Sein) is mistaken for beings (Seienden).158 Heidegger’s understanding of Dasein attempts to undo the flaw in understanding the nature of man brought about by metaphysical thinking, by considering man’s humanity and its relationship to Being.159 To Heidegger’s understanding of man, now, we could turn our attention.

According to Heidegger, Dasein is ek-sistence (Ek-sistenz) and ek-sisting is the way that is proper to Dasein.160 It consists in Dasein’s being attuned (ge-stimmt) to the voice (Stimme) of Being, which gives itself to Dasein in silence and to which Dasein is called to listen (hoeren) even in the loudest noise.161 In other words, Dasein’s ek-sisting consists in being attuned to listen to the call of Being and enabled to respond to the call by his openness to the light of Being. Thus, as ek-sistence, Dasein stands out in the openness of Being. The term ‘Dasein’, only in the sense of ek-sistence, stands for the reality of the involvement (Bezug) of Being in human nature and the fundamental relationship of man to the openness of Being.162 From this it is clear that ek-sisting is Dasein’s essence, because only as ek-sisting, can man ‘stand in’ (Innestehen) or dwell (wohnen) in the sphere of Being as man.163 The character of ‘standing in’ or ‘ek-sisting’, viz., the ‘there’ (das Da) makes Dasein the lighting of Being (Lichtung des Seins).164 Thus, the true nature of man’s essence is unfolded only when Dasein is seen in the light of Being, viz., as ek-sistence.

In the process of Dasein’s ek-sisting or dwelling in the light of Being, Heidegger gives primacy to Being and subordinates the role of man to that of Being. If it is not for Being’s initial openness to Dasein, he cannot be the lighting of Being. In other words, in the ek-sisting or dwelling of Dasein in the light of Being the role of Being is primary.165 This becomes clear also when we consider the struc-ture of Dasein as ek-sistence. Heidegger’s analysis of the structure of Dasein as ek-sistence follows more or less the pattern in which it is considered in Sein und Zeit. The ek-sistence is spoken of as a projection that is essentially thrown and fallen and which is con-stituted of care. Heidegger speaks of this thrown projection as a ‘fateful sending’ that is brought about by Being.166 Heidegger remarks:

. . . the projection is essentially thrown projection. What throws in projection is not man but Being itself, which sends man into ek-sistence of Dasein that is his essence. This destiny comes to pass as the lighting of Being as which it is. The lighting grants nearness to Being. In this nearness, in the lighting of the Da, man dwells as the ek-sisting one without yet being able to properly experience and take over this dwelling.167

Again, Heidegger indicates that Dasein as ek-sistence is con-stituted of care by the throw of Being when he says: "Being itself, which as the throw has projected the essence of man into ‘care’, is as this openness of Being".168 These two quotes from Heidegger clearly indicate the role of Being in Dasein’s dwelling as primary.

But in the process of dwelling in the nearness of Being, though thrown into his destiny by Being, man does play a role. By his dwell-ing man guards and preserves Being and its truth.169 Dasein lets himself open to Being and allows Being to shine forth, thereby be-coming a lighting-up-place, in which Being dwells and its truth is preserved. This involves, on the part of Dasein, a corresponding openness to the destiny to which the throw of Being leads him. To put it in Heidegger’s words: ". . . for man it is ever a question of finding what is fitting in his essence which corresponds to such destiny; for in accord with this destiny man as ek-sisting has to guard the truth of Being."170

From what we have said, Heidegger’s claim becomes clear. For him, man’s essence does not lie in his relationship with entities, i.e., man as the subject and entities as objects over which he looks and manipulates. Rather, the essence of man must be understood in terms of dwelling in the nearness of Being. It involves Dasein’s openness or standing out in the lighting of Being, thereby becoming the lighting-up-place of Being. Man is man and is his essential nature only because he ek-sists, i.e., stands out into the openness of Being. Only by dwelling in the light of Being does the ‘ek’ of ek-sistence essentially unfold.171 To quote Heidegger:

Man is never first and foremost, man on hither side of the world, as a ‘subject’ whether this is taken as ‘I’ or ‘we’. Nor is he simply a mere subject which always simultaneously is related to object, so that his essence lies in the subject-object relation. Rather, before all this, man in his essence is ek-sistant, into the openness of Being, into the open region that lights the ‘between’ within which a ‘relation’ of subject to object can ‘be’.172

According to Heidegger the German terms for dwelling (Wohnen) and building (Bauen) are intimately related to each other. Although not all buildings are dwelling places, yet one attains dwell-ing by means of a building. In other words, building is a means to the goal of dwelling. Heidegger, while not denying the means-end relationship between building and dwelling, says that the means-end schema does not help us to see the essential relatedness of building and dwelling as it considers building and dwelling as two separate activities.173 Heidegger speaks of an essential relation between building and dwelling, as the former is identical with the latter. This is clear when he says: ". . . building is not merely a means and a way towards dwelling; to build is it itself already to dwell." 174 In order to understand this relationship between building and dwelling we must etymologically analyze these two terms and their implications.

There are two senses of the term ‘Bauen’ (building), in both of which it is related to ‘Wohnen’ (dwelling). The first or broad sense of the term ‘Bauen’ refers to the way in which Dasein is on this earth,175 while the second or the strict sense signifies the manner in which Dasein comports himself in the structure of the dwelling process in relation to the things for which it cares.176

Taken in the broad sense, ‘Bauen’ is an equivalent of the term ‘Wohnen’, for according to Heidegger ‘Bauen’ derives from an old High German word ‘buan’, which means to remain or to stay in a place, i.e., to dwell. The original meaning of the verb ‘bauen’ is lost in the German usage, even though a trace of it is left in the German term ‘Nachbar’. The ‘Nachbar’, the ‘Nachgebur’ or the ‘Nachge-bauer’ means the ‘near-dweller’ or the ‘near-by-dweller’, i.e. the neighbor. Again, the verbs related to ‘bauen’, such as, ‘bueren’, ‘beuren’ and ‘beuron’ -- all mean to dwell in a place. The root words of ‘bauen’ -- ‘buan’, ‘bhu’ and ‘beo’ -- bear an affinity to the German forms of the verb ‘to be’ (sein), viz. ‘ich bin’, and ‘du bist’ (‘I am’ and ‘You are’). Thus, ‘bauen’ taken in the broad sense suggests the way in which Dasein is on the earth, viz. his dwelling. In this sense to dwell or to build means to be a human being and to be a mortal on the earth.177

‘Bauen’ considered, in the strict sense, i.e., in relation to that which is built, means to cherish, to protect, to preserve and to care for.178 In other words, it means to tend or to spare (schonen). In this sense also ‘bauen’ is related to ‘wohnen’. The term ‘wohnen’ is derived from the old Saxon term ‘wuon’ and the Gothic term ‘wu-nian’. The term ‘wuon’ means to remain in a place, like the old use of the term ‘bauen’. The term ‘wunian’ states the way in which this ‘remaining in a place’ is experienced, i.e., to remain in a place in peace, or to be brought to peace. The German term for peace ‘Friede’ has the nuance of ‘being preserved from harm and danger’, ‘to treat with consideration’, ‘taking care of’ and ‘safeguarding’.179 In other words, the term ‘wohnen’ (to dwell) means "to be set at peace . . . to remain at peace . . . (and) the free sphere that safeguards each thing in its essence",180 i.e., to tend or to spare. To quote Heidegger: "The fundamental character of dwelling is this sparing."181 Thus, it is clear that ‘bauen’ in the strict sense also means ‘wohnen’. In this sense, to dwell or to build means to let things be in their essence, by sparing them within the light of Being.

It is to the second sense of ‘bauen’ that Heidegger refers when he talks about building things by sparing them. Building, in the sense of sparing or dwelling involves the notion of accomplishing some-thing by toil or doing something by work -- as for example tilling the soil or cultivating the vine.182 Heidegger mentions two modes of building, viz. building as cultivating (colere) as the farmer does the cultivating in the fields, and building in the sense of raising edifices (aedificare) as the construction-worker constructs a temple.183 In both of these cases man builds (bauen) or accomplishes something: in cultivating, it is the farm that he cultivates; in constructing, it is the temple he constructs. In both cases, one must address two questions: the first is about the nature of the ‘thing’ (Ding) built, the second is about the nature of building or accomplishing (Bauen). Limiting himself to the second mode of Building, viz., building in the sense of constructing a ‘bridge’ as an example for the thing,184 Heidegger addresses these questions.

Raising the question of the nature of the ‘thing’, Heidegger speaks of it in a way that is different from the traditional under-standing. For him, the thing is not "the Roman ‘res’, the late Greek ‘on’, the medieval Latin ‘res’ or the modern Gegenstand (object)."185 A thing, fundamentally, is not something that is; but rather something that ‘things’ (dingt). The old High German word ‘Ding’ (thing) means ‘gathering’ (Versammlung). In ‘thinging’ the thing gathers the fourfold (Geviert) -- earth, sky, divinities and mortals -- into a thing. In this thinging of the thing, i.e., in the gathering of the fourfold in the thing Being presences itself in the thing and the thing ‘is’ in its being.186 Each thing gathers into itself the fourfold in its unique way. To take the example of the bridge, it gathers the earth as the landscape around the stream. It gathers the sky by being ready for sky’s weather and its changing nature. The bridge gathers before the divinities and visibly gives thanks for their presence, even though their presence is obstructed or wholly pushed aside by our thoughtlessness. It gathers the mortals, as mortals, by granting them their way that they may come and go from one shore to another. In this manner, the bridge, as a thing, gathers to itself the fourfold -- earth, sky, divinities and mortals -- in its unique way.187

The gathering of the fourfold is localized into a place (Ort). But the place did not exist, as a place prior to the bridge, even though there were many sites (Staette) by the riverbank where it could arise. In other words, there comes about a place only because of the bridge as a thing.188 Space is something that has been made room for by place. It is a certain free area within a boundary in which the thing begins to come-to-presence. Therefore, the essence of the space depends on place189 and it comes about as a result of the thinging of the thing. In other words, place and space are understood only in relation to the thinging of the thing, viz. in the gathering of the fourfold into the thing.

. . . the essence of the erecting of buildings cannot be understood adequately in terms either of architecture or of engineering construction, nor in terms of a mere combination of the two. The erecting of build-ings would not suitably be defined even if we were to think of it in the sense of the original Greek ‘techne’ as solely a letting-appear, which brings something made, as something present, among the things that are already present.190

On the contrary, erecting buildings, according to Heidegger, is a process of bringing forth (herbringen) or letting-dwell Being in the limits of the thing and, in turn, letting the thing itself presence (hervorbringen) what it is in itself. Thus, for Heidegger, "the essence of building is letting dwell"191 by which Dasein brings forth things as things and lets things be things.

It is by the process of letting things be things that Dasein builds or spares Being in beings. The building is a dwelling in the sense that Dasein lets Being dwell in things. Commenting on this point William J. Richardson says that sparing Being in beings, and building beings by bringing them forth as they are in themselves are one and the same. In fact, in sparing Being in beings, Dasein brings forth things as things.192 Dasein can build things in this way, because of the bi-dimensional character of his dwelling. William J. Richardson notes:

. . . it (Dasein) can let things shine forth in their own ‘place’, occupying their own ‘space’, because from the very beginning its (his) open-ness to Being is an open-ness to all ‘space’, . . . its (his) ontological dimension, is a constitutional near-ness to things. But only when this ontological dimension is articu-lated on the ontic level in things among which There-Being (Dasein) sojourns does There-Being (Dasein) find itself (himself) genuinely ‘at home’ in its (his) near-ness to things.193

But the bi-dimensional character of Dasein does not bring about the building and sparing things. There is a need, on the part of Dasein, to dwell in the openness of Being as ek-sisting, that he can effectively build things as things, for ". . . building is really dwelling."194 To quote Heidegger: " We do not dwell because we have built, but we build and have built because we dwell, that is, we are dwellers."195 Again he says: "Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build." 196 Heidegger concludes that "Dasein must ever learn to dwell"197 by being open and docile to the voice of Being.

Essential thinking of Being and dwelling in the neighborhood of Being takes Dasein to the third stage of the way to the goal, viz., seeing the truth of Being. The truth of Being consists in Dasein recognizing his relationship of belonging-together to Being, the relation of difference that exists between Being and entities and history as the time-space play of Being. When the truth of Being dawns on Dasein, he becomes a shepherd who guards Being as it is manifested in relation to himself, the entities and history. Speaking about Dasein, as the seer and the shepherd of Being, Heidegger says: "Man is not a lord of beings (Seienden). Man is the shepherd of Being (Sein). Man loses nothing ‘less’, rather he gains in that he attains the truth of Being. He gains the central poverty of the shepherd, whose dignity consists in being called by Being itself into the preservation of Being’s truth."198

Man, thus, is the shepherd of Being and its truth. In other words, he is called by Being to be its guardian and preserver. The manner in which he needs to exercise the guardianship is not one of lording over, but is one of waiting on and attending to Being. Only when Dasein dwells in the neighborhood of Being, can he become a shepherd, because as a shepherd Dasein is an attendant, who waits on the presencing of Being. A shepherd is not a stranger; but he knows the neighborhood as he had been dwelling in the nearest of the near.199 Only by dwelling there can Dasein become a shepherd.

Such a shepherd is a seer of the truth of Being. The German word ‘wissen’ (to see) and its Latin equivalent ‘videre’, signify ‘seeing’ in the sense of attaining wisdom, rather than mere intellec-tual seeing. A seer is one who has already seen the presencing of Being200 as revealing and concealing.201 The seeing is determined not by the eye, but by the lighting of Being that has been given to him already.202 The shepherd, in shepherding the truth of Being, stands in the light of Being’s presence and thereby sees the truth of Being. Therefore, the shepherd of Being is the seer of Being. The shepherd, in shepherding Being, sees its truth. In other words, the seer is "a shepherd who attends on, and watches over . . . sees the revealing-concealing play of Being"203 in history. The whole process of seeing the truth of Being belongs to the realm of Ereignis, in which Dasein and Being own each other. In this mutual owning of Dasein and Being, Dasein is bestowed the highest dignity of being the shepherd and the seer of Being.

Now that we have analyzed the three stages of the way, we could highlight the attainment of the goal, i.e., Being-experience. Essential thinking is attained in release (Gelassenheit).204 Dwelling occurs in Dasein in relation to his homecoming to the source and sparing the fourfold in things. Seeing the truth of Being becomes a reality for Dasein when he opens himself to the un-concealment of Being and to language, the house of Being. In attaining the goal, at every stage, there is a genuine interaction between Being and Dasein: Being’s gift of itself to Dasein and Dasein’s corresponding response in receiving Being’s gift. In this section, we attempt to bring to light the twofold movement on the part of Being and Dasein in attaining the goal.

According to Heidegger, essential thinking occurs in relation to release (Gelassenheit). Heidegger refers to the term ‘Gelas-senheit’ as an ‘old word’.205 By this he points to the affinity of the word to the German mystical tradition, special to the thought of Meister Eckhart.206 Heidegger himself, as with the case of thinking, does not attempt to write a treatise about Gelassenheit, but rather was interested in its occurrence.

Regarding the nature of release, we have a clear statement of Heidegger. In the context of Dasein’s attitude towards technology, he says that the term ‘Gelassenheit’ expresses a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ at the same time.207 In other words, it is an attitude of accepting tech-nology in one’s everyday life, but at the same time not being mastered by it. We could say that it is a state of consciousness in which Dasein is involved with things, yet not entangled with them. For Heidegger, the state of release is primordially brought about by Being, but Dasein also has to play his part. Thus, release is a task to be accomplished both by Being and Dasein. In the following pages, we will attempt to analyze the attainment of essential thinking in release by the co-operation of Being and Dasein.

In dealing with release in his book Discourse on Thinking, Heidegger uses a new term to refer to Being (Sein). He calls Being ‘Gegnet’, which is rendered in English as ‘that-which-regions’.208 Heidegger says that Gegnet is the primordial openness which ‘gathers’ (versammelt)209 and is characterized by expanse (weite) and abiding (weile), which in turn point to the spatio-temporal character of the Gegnet.210 So, Heidegger calls it ‘region-of-all-regions’.211 Thus, Gegnet is nothing other than Being in its spatio-temporal character.

There are two ways in which the regioning of ‘that-which-regions’ (das Gegen der Gegnet) manifests itself relating to Dasein and things. Firstly, the regioning of ‘that-which-regions’ relating to Dasein is Vergegnis (regioning). It is a primordial regioning by which ‘that-which-regions’ lets Dasein be open to it, in the sense of Dasein being appropriated to it.212 In other words, Vergegnis is that letting by Being which helps Dasein to rise above the pulls and pushes of everyday existence and to turn towards ‘that-which-regions’, resulting in Dasein’s freedom to be himself. Secondly, Heidegger speaks of a second type of letting of ‘that-which-regions’ in relation to things. This type of regioning is called Bedingnis (bethinging). It consists in letting things be things. Things are things only when they are let to rest in the abiding expanse of ‘that-which-regions’. A thing is a thing only insofar as it is ‘bethinged’ by ‘that-which-regions’.213 These two types of regioning by ‘that-which-regions’ (Being) in the relation of Dasein and things should not be understood in the causal sense or in the transcendental-horizional sense. Therefore, it is neither an ontic nor ontological relationship. It is a relationship that belongs to the realm of Being, as ‘that-which-regions’.214 Thus, ‘that-which-regions’ by Vergegnis lets Dasein be open to the region of ‘that-which-regions’, and by Bedingnis lets things be things. In so doing Being initiates the process of release, which activity of Being is primary in the process of release.

Release is the task not only of Being, but also of Dasein. Though ‘that-which-regions’ lets Dasein to be open to itself, release cannot come about until Dasein is released towards ‘that-which-regions’.215 Dasein must ‘turn from’ will, which for Heidegger is the basis of all representative-calculative thinking and must ‘turn to’ Being by waiting on it. In the following section, we could elaborate Dasein’s twofold tasks of ‘turning from’ and ‘turning to’.

The first step towards the attainment of release is a turning from willing. As representational-calculative thinking is a kind of willing, such thinking cannot be stopped by will as willing streng-thens willing. Release cannot come about unless Dasein is ready to give up willing. In other words, as long as Dasein is able to wean itself from willing it can move towards release.216 Therefore, the ‘turning from’ willing amounts to non-willing (Nicht-wollen). It consists in willingly renouncing willing.217 Renouncing willing in-volves a trace of willing as we have to will not to will. Heidegger says that such traces of willing in willing non-willing disappear and dissipate in release.218 To say that release is beyond willing would amount to the passivity of Dasein in the state of release. This claim is not true, as the distinction of willing and non-willing, activity and passivity, all belong to the domain of the will. Since release is a state that is beyond the realm of the will, all such distinctions do not apply to release.219 The so-called ‘not-doing’ associated with the released individual, says Heidegger, is not a cowardly allowing of things to drift along,220 but a power of action and resolve.221 Non-willing is the first though negative step that Dasein must take in order to free himself from his entanglement with, and domination by, things. Once Dasein is turned away from willing, he can begin to wait on Being.

Dasein’s positive response to the regioning (Vergegnis) of ‘that-which-regions’ is waiting (Warten). It is an attitude of Dasein, which consists in taking a deliberate stand of attentiveness to Being. Such a waiting lets Being present itself as itself; it is doing nothing but waiting.222 We always await something, while in waiting there is not real object. So "in waiting we leave open what we are waiting for."223 In waiting, we release ourselves into openness, because we leave open that for which we wait. Waiting moves into openness without any representation. So to wait is to be on the way (unter-wegs) towards openness, i.e., Being.224

Waiting, on the part of man, involves a twofold movement: one towards things, the other towards Being. Firstly, the movement of waiting towards things is called ‘release towards things’ (die Gelassenheit zu den Dingen). It is an attitude of Dasein that is ambivalent. It is saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same thing at the same time: ‘yes’ because we need the thing as it has a reference to our life; ‘no’ because we do not want the thing to dominate us and take our life where it wants. If we are released towards things, Heidegger says our relationship to things becomes "wonderfully simple and relaxed."225 Secondly, the movement of waiting towards Being is ‘openness to the mystery’ (die offenheit fuer Geheimnis). When we deal with things, or when we are affected by them either by fascina-tion or dislike, the meaning of these happenings tends to be hidden. We tend to be taken over by external dimensions of reality while being totally blind to the mystery-dimension or the inner aspect of reality. To quote Heidegger: ". . . we stand at once within the realm of that which hides itself from us, and hides itself just in approaching us."226 Everything in the world has this mystery dimension which hides itself. Heidegger cites the example of technology. In waiting, we turn towards the dimension of mystery in things. The more in waiting we open ourselves to the mystery-dimension of reality, to that extent release occurs in us227 and we become thinkers of Being. For Heidegger, release towards things and openness to mystery belong together. They help us to live in the world in a different way by giving us new ground on which to stand and a new vision to guide our lives.228

Dwelling is attained in Dasein in relation both to Being and beings. When Dasein opens himself to the poetic presencing of Being by poetic dwelling, he dwells in the neighborhood of Being. This involves a homecoming (Heimkommen) or return (Rueckehr) to the source (Ursprung)229 at the summoning of Being, and preservation of this original homecoming by a re-collective (poetic) dwelling in the three ecstases of time. Dasein dwells among things when he lets beings be in their being. This is done by keeping (sparing) the fourfold, viz., the three ‘facets’ of Being in things, thereby letting things be things. Here, we will consider the attainment of dwelling in relation to the homecoming and to the fourfold.

In many of his writings, Heidegger speaks of a ‘homelessness’ (Heimlosigkeit) of man. It is not a ‘housing-shortage’ (Wohnung-snot) or a lack of houses in which to dwell. ‘Homelessness’ consists in being ‘strangers’ in one’s own homeland (Heimat), and being a neighbor (Nachbar) to the world dominated by technology. It is loss of man’s rootedness (Bodenstandigkeit)230 in Being. Besides, ‘homelessness’ is an abandonment of Being and a symptom of the forgetfulness of Being,231 which, in fact, is a being away from the homeland, which for Heidegger is the nearness to Being.232 So Dasein’s homecoming is dwelling in its homeland, i.e. nearness to Being. Dasein is summoned to the homeland by a primordial poetic presencing to which Dasein responds by poetic dwelling. This is our concern in this section.

It is Being which summons Dasein to his homeland. This takes the form of Being manifesting itself to Dasein in its characteristics. Firstly, Being is Glad-some (das Heitere), which suggests the nuan-ces of brightness of light, serenity and gentle joy.233 The Glad-some is the source of joy and so is the most Joyous (das Freudigste). By sending rays of joy the Glad-some enlightens the homeland and makes it a welcome place for the homecoming Dasein. This, in turn, lights up the disposition of the home-comer to experience all that is noble in the homeland.234 Secondly, Being presents itself as the Holy (das Heilig). By ‘the Holy’ Heidegger means neither God nor gods. ‘The Holy’ is the ultimate conserving power which guards beings in the integrity of their being. Being as the Glad-some is the Holy, the articulation of which constitutes the primordial poem seen as the ‘thoughts’ of Being-as-the-spirit.235 Thirdly, Being shows itself as the Origin (Ursprung). Heidegger says: ". . . what is most proper and most precious in the homeland consists simply in the fact that it is this nearness to the Origin -- and nothing besides. . . ." 236 Being, as the Origin is best understood in the image of an overflowing and continuous source. It is Being as source that attracts the poet-wanderer to its nearness.237 Finally, Being itself shines forth as the Ground (Grund). Though Being is a continuous source and gives itself out, it constantly retains itself as the source. In other words, Being while giving itself out does not empty itself, but rather it remains a steadfast and consistent source. It is in this sense of self-retaining and continuous source that Being presents itself as the Ground.238

Thus, Being summons Dasein to its nearness by manifesting itself as the Glad-some, the most Joyous, the Holy, the Origin and the Ground. In Being’s manifestation of its qualities begins Dasein’s homecoming. Heidegger considers Dasein’s homecoming in terms of poetry, viz., in terms of bringing into poetry, the primordial poetic presencing of Being. Being addresses and hails itself as the primordial poem, to which the poet (Dasein) must give expression in words. Dasein’s homeland is to be found in the very source that hails Dasein, viz., Being.239 There are three moments or stages in the poet’s homecoming.

The first moment depicts the poet’s early days and his experience of the source. As a youth the poet grows up in the realm of the source without ever fully appreciating it. But as his poetic spirit is ‘open to the open’ he has some (pre-ontological) awareness of Being. But this awareness is often obscured as the source manifests itself in finite beings. The more he aims at penetrating the mystery of the source manifested in beings he gets lost in things, and Being, as it were, evades him. Because of the withdrawing nature of the source he is not able to hold off the difference between Being and beings.240 In spite of this state of forgetfulness of Being, the poetic spirit (Being) keeps him oriented towards Being. The orientation towards the source brings in the poet an awakening to go abroad to seek that which brings him closer to the source. Heidegger illustrates this by the German poet, who is the master of form (clarity of expo-sition), but fully forgets the spirit, viz., fire, which is the charac-teristic of the Greek poet. The German poet can have fire only if he has the courage to leave the homeland and make the journey abroad so that in coming back after the journey, he can dwell genuinely ‘at home’ near the source.241 Such a journey abroad is an essential con-dition for the homecoming and becoming-at-home. Indeed, the jour-ney from its first moment is a returning, as it is that which makes the poet experience what he really is, i.e., his poetic destiny.242

The second moment is the actual taking of the journey abroad. To experience the source, the poet must move with the stream, move down to the sea and experience the richness of the source.243 To appreciate the native soil, as the homeland that is near to the source, the poet must make a voyage to the land of Greece244 and be burned by the fire of Being.245 In the journey, the poet is constantly guided by Being. Every experience abroad reveals more and more of home. Finally, ". . . the fire has let him experience that it itself must be brought back from abroad into the homeland in order that there this proper endowment, the facility for clear expression can release its native powers in relation to the fire."246 It, in turn, will help him to produce a poetry of proper depth.

The third moment is the poet’s return to the homeland. The return to the homeland, enriched by his experience abroad, brings the poet to maturity. It helps the poet possess the homeland in a new and authentic way.247 For example, the poet’s voyage to Greece and being burned by the fire which is characteristic of Greek poetry, helps him to understand the disciplined style and clarity of expres-sion of German poetry in a new way, which, in turn, makes him a mature poet.248 Thus, the poet’s homecoming helps him to under-stand his homeland in a new way. It is a moving into the nearness249 and a following of the source.250 But the passage into the source is not such that we can dissolve the mystery dimension of the source or Being. The poet can never get at this fully. So Being as mystery has to be faced with reverential awe (Scheu).251 Being, as Joyous, is experienced by the poet with joy (Freude).252 Thus, the poet experiences Being by varying attunements. In the process he comes to the nearness of Being, and finds that therein lies his homeland. Being-at-home in his homeland, i.e., by his dwelling in the neighbor-hood of Being, the poet is able to sing or give expression, in poetry, to the Being-dimension of beings. It is the genuine homecoming and dwelling.

According to Heidegger, the following and drawing near to the source involved in homecoming is not something accomplished once for all. It is Dasein’s original experience of homecoming which is brought about by the summoning of Being; this is Dasein’s original return to the source, i.e., Being. The process must continue as long as the poet remains a poet; it must be sustained and preserved by a continuous abiding in the nearness to the source, thereby making it a place of dwelling (Wohnen).253 To quote Heidegger: "The one condition of becoming-at-home in his proper domain, . . . the journey abroad has been fulfilled. But this fulfillment remains fulfillment only on the condition that what has been experienced . . . is pre-served."254

The past, viz., the original homecoming which was Being’s poetic presencing is that on which the poet must poetically dwell. The past, in question, is not a mere memory of what has happened once and is forgotten, but has a lasting influence on the poet. Thus, the past still is a ‘having been’. The past, as ‘having been’ is real to the poet now, as it was for him when he first experienced it.255 The poetic dwelling on the past as ‘having been’ on the part of the poet is a greeting or hailing (Gruessen)256 of Being for its poetic pre-sencing. It involves a certain docility and self-surrender on the part of the hailer (the poet) to the hailed (Being). In doing so, the hailer allows the hailed, by his openness to be hailed, to shine forth in a way that is proper to the hailed. The hailed accepts the hail of the hailer and, in turn, hails the hailer.257 Thus, in the reciprocal hailing of Being and the poet (Dasein), the original homecoming is re-lived and thereby preserved. Heidegger remarks on this point as follows: "The heavenly fire (Being) imposes itself on him (the poet) who hails it . . . as thought and abides near him as that which comes-to-presence in . . . what-is-past (the original experience of homecoming)."258

The Holy or the Hailed is also the poet’s future, because by his poetic destiny the poet must bring forth in words the original poetic presencing of the Holy.259 The Holy comes to the poet as a primor-dial poem, before his poetizing. The poet must bring the primordial poem into words. Thus, for the poet to dwell poetically upon ‘what-is-past’, i.e., upon the primordial poetic presencing of Being (origi-nal homecoming), is to dwell upon ‘what-is-coming’ to him in the future, as by his poetic dwelling the poet experiences again and preserves the Holy as given in ‘what-is-past’. Conversely, dwelling upon ‘what-is-coming’ is to dwell upon ‘what-is-past’. In other words, the poet dwells upon the Holy that is given in the past as ‘having been’ (the past) and as ‘that-which-is-coming’ (the future). Thus, in the Holy the past and the future are unified.260

When the Holy gives itself as the primordial poem and con-tinues to come (future) to the poet, who has been hailed by the Holy itself by its original poetic presencing (past), the task of the poet is to render present (present) the Holy in the words of his poetry. The poet does this, insofar as he poetically dwells, by being at home near the source. The present dimension of the poetic dwelling consists fundamentally in that the poet learns to use his native propensity for poetry, viz. the ability for the clear expression and organization of the poetry with an authentic freedom of the spirit. In the initial stage of poetic presencing the poet, though close to the source, neither knew the source clearly, nor was aware of his inner propensity for poetry. But the original homecoming liberates him, and lets him know and dwell in the homeland, i.e., in nearness to Being, besides letting him know his native ability for poetry in a new way. Thus, the poet now knowing the source and the homeland, dwells in it poe-tically and gives authentic expression to his experience of the source and the homeland, facilitated by his new awareness of his native ability for poetry. It happens only as a result of the poet’s experience of the original homecoming. To quote Heidegger: ". . . (The poet) exercises (his) native endowment, the clarity of expression, ‘freely’ only then, when what is clear in his utterance is permeated by the open experience of that which is exposed."261

Thus, original poetic presencing of Being, i.e., the original homecoming of the poet is preserved and sustained as an ever-present dwelling in the nearness of being by poetic-dwelling. This involves: re-calling it as an experience of the hailing of Being in the past; waiting on it as an experience in which the Holy (Being) con-tinues to come to the poet in the future; and experiencing the Holy in the here and now, to which the poet gives the fullest expression in the present in poetry by using his inner ability for poetic utterance in an authentic freedom of the spirit. From what we have said, it could be concluded that the original presencing of Being in the primordial poem is preserved and sustained in the poetry or in the poetic word of the poet. William J. Richardson speaks of the poetic word of the poet as ". . . a word of ‘hailing’ inasmuch as it greets what is past; at the same time, it is a ‘prophetic’ word, inasmuch as it articulates what is coming; both for the same reason because it seeks to utter past and future in their original correlation, the holy as such. Such a word can be uttered only if the poet has learned to use his native talent with a freedom that is genuine."262

Dasein’s dwelling among things consists in sparing and pre-serving the fourfold. "To save the earth, to receive the sky, to wait on divinities and to initiate mortals -- this fourfold preserving is the simple essence of dwelling."263 ‘To spare’ or ‘to preserve’ means to take something under one’s care or to look after something. To pre-serve the fourfold, thus, means to keep it under the watchful care of Dasein. The sparing of the fourfold by Dasein involves a mode of Dasein’s relating to things, by and in which Dasein spares the fourfold in things. In other words, Dasein, by his relation to things lets them gather the fourfold in themselves. This, in turn, means that Dasein lets the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals bring the structure of the world in which things can be what they are in their being,264 in the primordial unity of the fourfold. Dasein, as the dweller and the builder, plays the key role in sparing things by bringing about the unity of the fourfold in things. Man is the ‘Da’ of ‘Sein’ and he dwells in the fourfold, by gathering the fourfold in things. To quote Heidegger: "Mortals are in the fourfold by dwell-ing."265 So the dwelling of Dasein, as mortal, in the fourfold is the sparing and building of things.

Firstly, mortals dwell in that they save (retten) the earth. The term ‘saving’ is not to be taken in the sense of preventing something from danger or destruction. Saving the earth means much more than to exploit or to wear the earth out by the manipulative nature of science and technology. By saving the earth, mortals not only pre-vent mastering and subjugating the earth, but also set the earth free so that it can be its true nature. In the concrete, this means to leave it in its essence, guard it by sustaining it in its elements, and thus allow the emerging vegetation and animal life. In other words, saving the earth consists in using the earth in the proper way, instead of exploiting and destroying it.266

Secondly, mortals dwell insofar as they receive or accept (empfangen) the sky as the sky. This means that "they leave to the sun and to the moon their journey, to the stars their course, to the seasons their blessings and their inclemency; they do not turn night into day and day into a harassed unrest."267 Concrete, this would imply that mortals must respect the unnamed and guard the un-known. This is not attempting to solve the secrets of Being by raising up metaphysical systems and rational thinking, but to respect the mystery of Being. When no help is offered in knowing these mys-teries the dweller is patient, and when lights are offered he guards their rays from everyday idle-talk.268 In other words, it involves a ‘letting-things-be-as-they-are’ and letting them reveal their essential being.

Thirdly, mortals dwell in that they wait on (erwarten) the divinities as divinities. In hope they look up to the divinities to re-ceive what they hoped for. This involves Dasein being attentive and alert to receiving signs of intimations regarding the appearing of the divinities and that they do not miss the signs of their absence. Be-sides, they are also asked not to make their own gods and warned against worshipping idols. Concretely, this means that mortals should not mistake a being (Seiende) for Being (Sein). The idols of calculative thinking must be left behind. In case the Holy has withdrawn, they must wait for the arrival of the "weal that has been withdrawn."269

Fourthly, mortals dwell in that they initiate their own essential nature, viz., their being capable of facing death as death. While saving the earth, receiving the sky, waiting on divinities, Dasein must dwell in the perspective of his own mortal nature. Death, ac-cording to Heidegger, is not an empty something which is our life’s goal; nor is it only an end-point of one’s life. Death is a continuous process in the life of Dasein. Therefore, dying a good death is the same as living a new life. In fact, an authentic realization of his mortality can help Dasein to dwell genuinely in the fourfold in its unity, and thereby spare and build things.270

Dwelling on the earth (auf der Erde) Dasein thus saves the earth as the earth; by dwelling under the sky (unter dem Himmel) he receives the sky as the sky; by dwelling before the divinities (vor den Goettlichen) he waits on the divinities as divinities; and finally by taking upon himself his own essence of mortality, by accepting death as death, he preserves the fourfold and thereby dwells among things. In so doing Dasein builds things in their essential being or spares Being in beings. "Dwelling inasmuch as it keeps the fourfold in things, is, as this keeping, a building."271 Dasein, by his fourfold sparing of the things, by dwelling in the fourfold, lets things be things in relation to the four facets of Being, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. In this letting-be of things, Dasein does not attempt to manipulate, master or compel things, but instead builds things in their essential nature, i.e., in relation to the fourfold. It is not an indifference or lack of interest in things, but rather a letting-be which allows things to manifest Being (Sein) in their essence.272

Dasein’s seeing the truth of Being in the sense of ‘realizing’ or ‘experiencing’ cannot be attained as long as one does not move away from the attitude of representational thinking, in which man sees himself as the rational animal. This seeing involves a leap (Sprung) from the level of logic-dominated thinking to the realm of Ereignis in which man and Being are naturally appropriated to each other in their essential nature. Speaking of the nature of the leap, Heidegger says that it is abrupt, for entry into the realm of Ereignis is an ‘un-abridged entry’ that can come about only if we let go the logic-do-minated thinking. Only such a leap into the realm of the mutual appropriation of Being and man can let Dasein see the truth of Being.273 Entry into the realm of Ereignis -- thereby seeing the truth of Being -- can come about when Dasein as the seer looks into the process of Being’s un-concealment (aletheia) and by his dwelling in language, which is the house of Being. In this section, we will study how the seeing is accomplished in Dasein by his openness to aletheia and language.274

The Greek term ‘aletheia’275 means ‘un-concealment’ (Un-verborgenheit), communicating the notion of being unhidden or revealed. It is literally the ‘a’ of ‘lethe’. The Greek ‘a’ and the cor-responding German ‘un’ are taken in the privative sense,276 i.e., in the sense of undoing the concealing that is there. There is a gradual change in Heidegger’s understanding of the term ‘aletheia’. Hei-degger did not use the term to mean ‘truth’ (Wahrheit), nor did he continue to consider ‘truth as aletheia; but he studied aletheia as aletheia.277 Aletheia is rendered in four different senses. The first two correspond to the concealing and revealing aspects of aletheia, based on the emphasis given either to the ‘a’ or to the ‘lethe’. The former points to the revealing while the latter stresses the con-cealing.278 It is, in this sense, that we have spoken of Being as giving and withholding; approaching and withdrawing; presencing and absencing. The third way of rendering aletheia refers to the metaphysical understanding of the term, in which it comes to mean truth, certitude and correctness as opposed to falsity, uncertitude and incorrectness.279 The fourth way of understanding aletheia means the unconcealment or the clearing of Being. We will consider this meaning of aletheia in detail.

The essence of aletheia as ‘unconcealment’ is openness,280 which is unconcealed in aletheia. This openness is not the result of an unconcealment; rather unconcealment occurs only because the fundamental openness lets it occur by being its source and founda-tion. There is a genuine freedom associated with the unconcealing of the openness.281 It is in relation to this freedom that the essence of the openness lights up.282 The openness is the ‘play-ground’ (Spiel-raum) and is lighting or clearing (Lichtung); it is the shelter of Being 283 and in the open-shelter of Being each of the unconcealed is sheltered.284 Heidegger clarifies this un-concealing dimension of aletheia in terms of the image of forest-clearing (Waldlichtung). Clearing the forest is associated with a dense forest which fully hides its expanse. The clearing of the forest involves letting light in, or the forest be open and free. This presupposes the openness of the forest. Thus, clearing lets the open expanse of the forest ‘be’ there for everything to be sheltered in.285 Through this image, Heidegger understands aletheia as the clearing.286 It refers to the primordial realm of the open, out of which the interplay of revealing and con-cealing, and the mirror-play of the fourfold comes-to-pass. In other words, aletheia as unconcealment, reveals the realm of Ereignis, viz., the event of appropriation, in which man belongs to Being and beings are sheltered in the historical unfolding of Being in the play of time and space.

Since aletheia is unconcealment of the truth of Being in the event of appropriation, there is naturally a role for Dasein to play in this unconcealing process, as he is the seer of the truth of Being. So we would highlight the role played by man in the revealing process of Being. "Mortals are irrevocably bound to the revealing-con-cealing gathering which lights up everything present in its pre-sencing."287 As the thinker of Being, man opens himself to the mys-tery of Being; as ek-sistence and dweller in the nearness of Being, he stands in the open of the clearing and looks (blickt) into it; finally, as the shepherd and seer of the truth of Being, man sees (sieht) into the openness of Being. As man sees into the openness to Being, Being itself frees for itself the ‘it is’ of each entity. In this freeing, Being looks at (anblickt) man in his shepherding of the openness of Being.288 By this seeing into Being, man lets Being look at him. The mutual look (Blick) is the belonging-together of Being and man, in which the aletheia or unconcealing of being occurs. Man alone, as standing in the clearing of Being and as shepherding, preserve the truth of Being. He sees into the openness of Being and lets himself be looked at by Being. In so doing, he becomes a genuine seer of the truth of Being. Aletheia, as unconcealment of Being needs man for its revealing of Being. Being, as the clearing of truth needs Dasein for its clearing. That is why Heidegger says that "human nature is given over to truth, because truth needs man."289 But since the truth of Being is that which lets man belong to Being in the first place, Being is primary in this process. Even though priority lies in Being, yet Being needs man in that its truth is preserved by means of man’s seeing into the openness of Being. Thus, we can say that aletheia, as the unconcealment of Being happens only in relation to the mutual look of Being and man, i.e. in their belonging-together.

The truth of Being can be attained by Dasein’s openness to language, the house of Being, besides his openness to aletheia. When Heidegger speaks of language, he does not refer to the meta-physical-technological language. Such a language simply informs or gives information290 and so lacks genuine speaking. Neither does Heidegger understand language as commonly understood, viz., as an expression (Ausdruecken) and an activity (Taetigkeit) of man. It is, firstly, an expression as it utters or externalizes something that is internal. Secondly, language is an activity because it is something that comes about as a result of man’s speaking.291 For Heidegger, understanding language in this way does not take us to the essence of language. It can only be reached when we consider the being (We-sen) of language.292 In order to inquire into the being of language, we must ask ourselves, as to the way in which language as such occurs. In other words, in order to understand language in its being, instead of talking about language, we must let language speak to us in its being. So, only by letting language speak within itself, can we bring language as such, i.e., in its being, into language.293

In order that language may speak to us in its being, Heidegger goes on to analyze the pre-Socratic notion of ‘logos’, which means both Being (Sein) and language (saying).294 ‘Logos’ is derived from the verb ‘legein’, which is equivalent to the German ‘legen’ (to lay) and Latin ‘legere’ (to read). Like its Latin and German equivalents, the Greek ‘legein’ has the nuance of ‘collecting or bringing to-gether’, i.e., a laying which gathers.295 As a laying that gathers, ‘legein’ keeps the gathered in the open. In this sense, ‘legein’ means to say (sagen). For saying (die Sage) consists in the letting-lie-together, as gathered, before that which gathers.296 Thus, the essence of language as saying, in its original Greek sense, is "the gathering letting-lie-before of what is present in its presencing."297 In other words, saying or language in the original sense of ‘logos’ and ‘le-gein’ is a showing (Zeige) or a letting-appear. Therefore, the analysis of the primordial Greek term ‘logos’ lets language, as la-nguage, speak of itself from within itself -- in its being -- as a saying that shows something or that lets something appear. "To say (lan-guage, as saying) means to show, to make appear the lighting -- concealing -- revealing offer of world."298

The above quotation from Heidegger not only indicates what language, as saying, is, but also what it shows or makes appear, viz., the world. The naming of a thing by the word 299 is a calling of the thing to its being, i.e., the thinging of the thing.300 The word is unfolded in the thinging of the things, i.e. in the gathering and bringing near of the fourfold -- the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. In other words, in naming the world, in saying that a thing ‘is’ in its being or that a thing things (bedingt),301 we are saying the same thing. The thinging of the thing is the worlding of the world and the presencing of the presencing. Thus, language as the saying that shows is nothing other than Being as the worlding in its re-vealing-concealing character, which unfolds in history in the time-space-play.302 Understood in this way alone, language as saying that genuinely speaks303 is the peal of stillness.304

The house of Being is language as saying that shows the world in its time-space play and lets happen the difference (Unterschied) for world and things305 by worlding the world in the fourfold.306 Language protects the presencing of Being by bringing into light the truth of Being.307 In other words, language is the house that gathers everything in it so that in this house they find their essence, their name and their being. By providing protection (die Hut) and housing the beings in the being language houses Being. It is in language that the truth of Being is guarded. Language is the house of Being, because, as saying, it is a mode of appropriation308 and belongs to the realm of Ereignis. Language as the mode of appropriation in revealing withholds;309 its movement is historical, i.e., epochal,310 and calls to difference between world (Being) and things (beings).311 When seen in terms of the event of appropriation language is not inaccessible to man. As the seer, man sees the truth of Being that is found in language, the house of Being.

As the house of Being, language needs man in order to speak of Being. Man plays a great role in the linguistic manifestation of Being. Speaking of the role of man in seeing the truth of Being as it comes to pass in language, Heidegger says: "Language speaks. Man speaks only in so far as he corresponds to language." 312 Man is neither the inventor nor the speaker of language; he is the co-speaker capable of passing on the speaking of Being. "Man is capable of speaking only insofar as he, belonging to saying, listens to saying, so that in resaying it he may be able to say a word."313 Though man is a co-speaker and is enabled by language in his speaking, yet lan-guage needs him in order that this ‘peal of stillness’ can be brought into speech. "Saying is in need of (man for) being voiced in the world."314 In his belonging to the stillness of language, man speaks aloud in his own unique way.315 The different languages are different ways of responding to speaking aloud the silent voice of language. But, though man speaks in various languages which consist of ‘terms’ (Woerter), the genuine responding is done in words (Worte), which is beyond the linguistic differences. In genuine speaking man does not speak about language, but rather speaks from the primor-dial language, which is the basis of all human speaking.316

Man’s response to the silent presencing of language presu-pposes a listening317 in which man lets-himself-be-spoken-to. It is in letting oneself into saying318 that one can see the Being that is housed in language as saying. One needs to keep silence in listening. Just as man responds to the speaking of language by speaking aloud what is heard in language, in the same way the peal of silence of the saying must be received or listened to by a corresponding silence.319 In this way by speaking and keeping silence man listens and thereby cor-responds to language.320 Thus, man comes to attain the truth of Being in language in the belonging-together of Being as speaking (Sprechen) and of man as cor-responding (Ent-sprechen). In the speaking-corresponding relationship, man sees his unity with Being, the difference between world (Being) and things (beings), and the time-space-play manifestation of Being in history. As the seer and shepherd of the house of Being, language is man’s home as well. He guards his home, viz. language, by shepherding the Being it houses.