This chapter looks into Ereignis, the realm in which Dasein’s movement from the state of care to transcendence takes place. Besides, it attempts to analyze the two stages of this process and Dasein’s total authenticity. In order to bring these points to focus, we will also take up the comparison of similar themes from early and later Heidegger.

According to Heidegger, the nature of the truth of Being can be understood in the realm of Ereignis. It implies that in this realm the belonging-together (Zusammengehorigkeit) of Being and Dasein, the difference (Unterschied) as such between Being and entities and the spatio-temporal nature of the history of Being is understood. We would briefly analyze the meaning of Ereignis.

Now that we have analyzed the notion of Ereignis and distin-guished it from Being, we could explain the Heideggerian perspec-tive of Dasein in the light of Heidegger I and Heidegger II. We do this by bringing in similar themes that are treated by Heidegger in his early and later thought. We do not intend to do a comparative analysis of all the themes of both the phases of Heideggerian think-ing; our selection of themes is guided by our interest in developing Heidegger’s notion of the total authenticity of Dasein. We consider the various themes of Heidegger I and Heidegger II pertaining to the notion of Dasein in three sections, viz., Dasein in his existential, relational, authentic (and historical) aspects. Such an exposition would enable us to explore the stages of Dasein’s total authenticity in the realm of Ereignis.

Here we want to bring to light the early Heideggerian notion of ‘Dasein as existence’ in his noetic and everyday aspects, with similar themes from later Heideggerian thinking.

In Heidegger I Dasein as being-in is analyzed. Being-in is not a spatial, but an existential ‘in-ness’, which is Dasein’s relationship of involvement with entities and other Daseins. In other words, it is a care-taking dealing of Dasein or Dasein in his dis-closedness. Dasein discloses himself in three modes, viz., state-of-being, under-standing and discourse. State-of-being refers to the way Dasein is ‘placed’ in the world. Dasein finds himself as a thrown existence, and is never able to get back behind his thrownness. Understanding is that ability of Dasein by which he can withstand his thrownness, in the sense that with understanding he can accept and develop his thrownness. Understanding opens up possibilities by interpreting the way Dasein finds himself and expressing it in assertion. Dis-course with the help of language, which is a spoken form of discourse, meaningfully articulates and communicates the thrown understanding that is interpreted and expressed in assertion. In Heidegger I, discourse is more fundamental than language.

In Heidegger II, we find a parallel analysis of Dasein’s dwell-ing. Dasein is spoken, here, as a dweller in the neighborhood of Being, as he dwells in the fourfold in which Being shines forth. Dasein finds himself in the fourfold as mortal (parallel to state-of-being in Heidegger I). Here too Dasein, as mortal, is not able to get back behind his nature as mortal. The mortal Dasein recognizes (parallel to understanding in Heidegger I) his mission to guard the light of being in the fourfold. He does this by saving the earth as earth, receiving the sky as sky, waiting on divinities as divinities and initiating his own essential nature as mortal. Dwelling, in this man-ner, in the fourfold, Dasein builds things in their essential nature and spares Being in beings. Dasein, not only dwells in the fourfold, but also in language (parallel to discourse in Heidegger I) which is the house of Being. In so doing, he protects the presencing of Being by bringing into light the truth of Being. In Heidegger II language is more fundamental than discourse.

Heidegger I speaks of Dasein’s fallen existence. This is not to be taken in the moral or religious sense, but is a state in which Dasein is dominated by the ‘they’. The characteristics of distentiality, me-diocrity and publicness mean that Dasein is so immersed in the world of his concern so that he loses sight of the truth about his own being; Dasein’s understanding is dimmed and the ‘they’ determines his choices and decisions. This state is characterized by temptation, tranquilization, alienation and entanglement. As fallen, Dasein con-tinues to live in his bottomless living of everydayness. The motive for this state is existential guilt (Schuld) which consists in two existential limitations: Dasein’s inability to get back behind his thrown existence and his inability to choose all the possibilities. Fallen Dasein expresses himself in curiosity, idle-talk and ambi-guity. Curiosity is an attitude of not abiding in anything and of seeing novelty for its own sake. Idle-talk is chatter without proper understanding. Ambiguity constitutes Dasein’s inability to be straightforward and to have genuine knowledge. Thus, Dasein’s fallen state is a state marked by total estrangement of Dasein from his own being.

Parallel to this notion, in Heidegger II, is metaphysical-tech-nological existence, characterized by Dasein’s falling away from Being. In this kind of thinking Dasein is concerned with beings in their abstract beingness and about that being which is the basis of all beingness. Thus, metaphysics as the study of Being becomes onto-theo-logic and in the process the whole question of Being (Sein) is forgotten. Metaphysical thinking, for Heidegger, is characteristic of the history of Western philosophy since Plato. It forms the basis for modern technological existence which ends up in representational-calculative outlook in which reason and logic dominate thinking. Everything is seen as something that can be studied by research and manipulated with the use of technology. In the process not only things, but also man becomes a victim of technology, an important raw material. In this manipulative context man lives a restless exist-ence of alienation from Being.

This section concerns a comparative analysis of Dasein as related to Being, the world and truth in the light of both the phases of Heidegger’s thought.

Heidegger I speaks of Dasein as fundamentally related to Being. Of all entities, only Dasein is able to comprehend Being. Though this is a pre-conceptual and vague understanding of Being, Dasein is able to raise the question of the meaning of Being and to understand other entities in their being. The pre-conceptual under-standing of Being is not something accidental to Dasein as he is the ‘Da’ of ‘Sein’ and this relatedness to Being is fundamentally rooted in the being of Dasein.

In Heidegger II Being and Dasein are considered as ‘belong-ing-together’. This is not in the metaphysical sense of causal con-nection, but in the sense of an appropriating relationship in which both Being and Dasein enter into each other’s realms. It is a two-way relationship. Being belongs to Dasein in the sense that it presences itself in Dasein and makes a claim on him. Dasein responds to Being’s presencing and summoning. It is the most fundamental type of relationship as all other forms of relationship are based on it. Such a relationship is understood only in the realm of Ereignis, i.e., the event of appropriation.

Heidegger I considers the world as the matrix of Dasein’s relational totalities and their total significance. World is not the mere presence of many entities, rather the worldhood of the world consists in the being of these entities, i.e., in their inter-relatedness. World is always the world of Dasein, based on Dasein’s projective understanding as the ultimate ‘for-the-sake-of-which’. In this sense, we can speak of as many worlds as there are different meaningful relational totalities to Dasein as that ‘for-the-sake-of-which’.

Heidegger II explains the world in terms of the lighting of Being in the fourfold. The fourfold consists of the four elements, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. The former two constitute the physical components of Being, while the latter two constitute the divine and human aspects respectively. The world-hood of the world is the dynamic interplay of these four elements in and through which Being shines forth. In Heidegger II also it is the mortal Dasein that receives the lighting of Being in the fourfold; but the role of Dasein is one of waiting, listening and responding to the lighting of Being.

In Heidegger I, truth is seen not as an agreement between the subject and the object (Adequatio), but as ‘Being-uncovering’ (Entdeckend-Sein) which consists in the entity’s showing itself in the act of confirmation by Dasein. As the confirmation by Dasein is the basis of any agreement, truth is always related to Dasein as without him no truth can be discovered. The truth of entities is related to the truth of Dasein, as it is Dasein that uncovers the uncoveredness of entities. Dasein does not create truth, but lays bare the truth that is already contained in the essents.

Heidegger II considers truth as aletheia, i.e. the unconcealing-concealing process of Being, in which the clearing of Being takes place. The un-concealing of Being takes place in spatio-temporal history. The truth of Being cannot be known by metaphysical thinking, but belongs to the realm of Ereignis and is understood only in relation to Dasein’s belonging-together to Being. Dasein sees the truth of Being as a shepherd who waits on, and preserves, the un-concealing of Being.

In this section, we would like to highlight Dasein in his au-thentic and historical dimensions; in other words, we want to see the authentic, whole, temporal and historical Dasein in comparative light.

The ‘call of conscience’ is a significant theme in Heidegger I. The caller of conscience is the anxious Dasein in his ‘not-at-home-ness’; the called is the same fallen Dasein which is under the sway of the ‘they’; the call summons Dasein to his true self. Thus, the call of conscience is the call from Dasein to himself that he can be his ability to be. When Dasein listens to himself in anticipatory resolute-ness, he becomes his authentic and true self.

In Heidegger II the call of Being is a constant theme. Speaking of essential thinking, Heidegger says that it is fundamentally a call of Being to which Dasein is expected to respond. He is able to respond to this call by re-collection of the call and thanking for the gift of the call. In the process of Being’s call and Dasein’s response essential thinking occurs in release. Dasein’s dwelling in the near-ness of Being occurs when the poetic presencing of Being is responded to by Dasein in poetic dwelling. Dasein’s seeing the truth of Being is effected in the mutual look of Being and Dasein into each other’s realms. It is the call of Being and Dasein’s responding that effects Dasein’s authenticity.

Heidegger I views Dasein as being-towards-death. Death is not an event that terminates Dasein’s life at one particular moment in the future, but constantly is present in Dasein as a possibility of the impossibility of his being. Death is certain, yet it is an indefinite possibility relating to its ‘how’ and ‘when’. Thus, Heidegger I, in presenting Dasein as being-towards-death, points to the radical finitude of Dasein.

Heidegger I speaks of anticipatory resoluteness leading Da-sein into authenticity. In anticipatory resoluteness Dasein is free from inauthentic preoccupation with his world. The change that has come about in anticipatory resoluteness is not a change in Dasein’s world, but a transformation in Dasein’s awareness of himself, other Daseins and entities. Even in the state of anticipatory resoluteness Dasein still lives with the same people and works with the same tools as he belongs to the same environment and the community as before. What has happened now is a change in perspective, so that Dasein is able to experience everything in its authentic reality. This change in perspective enables him to let others be themselves and fulfill their possibilities. It leads to cultivating a mutual responsibility for each other. So also Dasein’s relation with entities is transformed. In the state of anticipatory resoluteness, Dasein has a concernful being-with-others. This state is brought about by Dasein turning into his own true self.

In Heidegger II, the essential thinking is spoken of as oc-curring in release. It is an attitude of saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same thing at the same time. It is an attitude of accepting something as a need in our existence and at the same time not being mastered by it. It is a state in which Dasein is involved with things, but not en-tangled with them. In other words, in release Dasein is able to see himself and everything else in the mystery dimension of Being. The occurrence of release is primarily the task of Being’s twofold regioning and Dasein’s twofold responding in the realm of Ereignis.

Heidegger I views Dasein as the spatio-temporal-historical existence. The spatiality of Dasein consists in two existentials, viz., de-distancing and directionality. The former is the quality of bring-ing something closer, while the latter places something in relation to a locality. The spatiality of entities basically depends on that of Dasein. Dasein’s essence is to be understood in relation to tem-porality. That is the reason Heidegger interpreted all the earlier notions of Dasein-analysis in terms of temporality at the end of Being and Time. Since Dasein’s life stretches between two points of time Dasein is historical. History, in Heidegger I, is understood only in relation to Dasein. Therefore, historiology, as a science is pos-sible only because Dasein is historical. Thus, in Heidegger I, space, time and history are understood in relation to Dasein.

Heidegger II speaks of the history of Being as the time-space-play. Being’s giving of itself in the revealing-concealing process is a sending of Being. So, for Heidegger, history is always a history of Being and is epochal in nature. Heidegger sees the reasons for the epochal sending of Being to be due to the nature of time. Though Being gives itself as presencing, it extends to ‘what-has-been’, ‘what-is-not-yet’ and to the present. The presencing of Being re-lating to the former two is in absence, while the presencing of the present is in presence. The interplay between the presencing and the absencing is the reason for the epochal nature of history. The history of Being is manifest in its spatial dimension in the fourfold and consists in the spatial gathering of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals in their unity. Thus, the interplay of the three ec-stases of time and the mirror-play of the fourfold account for the spatio-temporal history of Being. As the spatio-temporal-historical being, Dasein is part of the history of Being but his role is a special one because he is a co-player with Being in its epochal sending.

Heidegger I speaks of Dasein as authentic existence. By listening to the call of conscience by wanting-to-have-a-conscience in resoluteness, in the context of his concrete ‘Situation’, Dasein moves towards authentic existence. Facing the concrete ‘Situation’ of his life brings Dasein to confront his existential guilt with its in-herent existential limitations, besides bringing to the fore Dasein’s death in anticipation. The anticipation of death, in turn, makes Dasein’s listening to the call of conscience in resoluteness more authentic and deliberate because authentic being-towards-death, i.e., anticipation of death, opens Dasein to accept his guilt, exist-ential limitations, death itself and the mood of anxiety associated with these. Heidegger calls this phenomenon anticipatory resolute-ness. Thus, in anticipatory resoluteness, Dasein attains his authentic existence. From what we have said it is clear that in Heidegger I Dasein’s authenticity is attained in relation to Dasein’s own move-ment towards his ultimate possibility, viz., death, in anticipatory resoluteness.

Heidegger II sees Dasein’s final state of authenticity as a seer who sees and shepherds Being. Here, ‘seeing’ is taken in the sense of ‘experiencing’ or ‘realizing’. Dasein sees the truth of Being not by lording over beings, but by shepherding Being and its truth. As a shepherd, Dasein attends to Being and waits on its presencing. In this attentive-waiting on Being and watchful shepherding of the presencing of Being Dasein becomes a seer. Dasein’s nature, as a seer, and the nature of his seeing the truth of Being cannot be understood in the light of representational thinking. But it has to be grasped in relation to Being’s unconcealing-concealing process (aletheia) and to language, the house of Being, in the realm of Ereignis. Because of his essential belonging-together to Being as a shepherd, Dasein is able to look into the unconcealment of Being and dwell in language, the house of Being. In this process Dasein be-comes the seer, viz., the total authentic Dasein.

Heidegger I presents an image of Dasein which envisages human existence as the ultimate finality. Everything, including Dasein and his being, is understood in relation to his self and his world. Dasein is the focus of attention and everything revolves around him. Yet, Dasein is viewed as a finite existence characterized by existential guilt, existential limitations and existential death. Thus we have a seemingly contradictory image of human existence in Heidegger I. In this section we will elaborate the image of Dasein in these twofold aspects.

Dasein is a unique type of being. He is just like any other entity in the world, yet he transcends all other entities as he has a pre-conceptual understanding of Being, and as only in relation to Dasein is everything else understood. That is why he is referred to as ‘existence’ and ‘transcendence’. He could never be the object of anyone’s concern except that of himself. Of all entities, only for Dasein is his existence an issue. Thus, Dasein stands out and stands apart from all other entities. Besides, existential Dasein is always one’s own and is characterized by ‘my-ownness’. This ‘my-own-ness’ of Dasein, on the one hand, gives him uniqueness and, on the other hand, makes him a free and self-sufficient being which needs to make his own choices and decisions and be responsible for them. Thus, Dasein has to depend on his own self for his personal concern. This quality of ‘my-ownness’ cuts Dasein off from others and moves him to his self and world. Because Dasein is unique and his own, he is the only type of being that can be authentic or inauthentic in his choices and living. Since Dasein is his own possibilities, he can choose or lose himself, own his possibilities or reject them, build up or forget his own being. Thus, Dasein is what makes himself, as his life and choices totally depend on him.

Dasein also has a priority over all other entities, in the sense that he is the existential horizon in relation to which everything else is studied and understood. Dasein, with his pre-conceptual under-standing of Being, is the only being that raises the question of the meaning of Being. In other words, the meaning and truth of Being can be understood only in the light of Dasein. Besides the meaning and truth of entities depend on Dasein. One cannot speak of the truth of entities apart from Dasein, as the discoveredness of entities is possible only for the discovering Dasein. Thus, Dasein is the meaning-giver and the foundation of every truth. Therefore, not only ontology as the study of Being, but, all sciences are possible only because there is Dasein. If it were not for Dasein, no meaningful study of reality would be possible.

The indispensability of Dasein for any meaningful study of reality is due to Dasein’s being understanding. Understanding dis-closes to Dasein what he is capable of, viz., his possibilities and that of the entities. This disclosure is not merely theoretical, but exist-ential and practical. Dasein’s understanding involves not only mere knowledge of the possibilities, but also the project on the basis of which these possibilities can be actualized. Therefore, it is in under-standing his possibilities that Dasein expresses. Besides, Dasein can communicate the interpretation of the projective understanding in discourse. In this manner Dasein becomes the basis for any meaning-ful study of reality.

As projective understanding, Dasein is always ‘in-the-world’. The term ‘in-the-world’ is to be taken not in the spatial sense, but in the existential sense of relatedness to the world. Dasein is part of the environmental and social worlds. The former consists of Dasein’s being-along-side the entities in his concernful dealings of preoccu-pation, while the latter refers to Dasein’s relationship of solicitude with other Daseins. It is a relationship of ‘being-with’. These rela-tionships of ‘being-along-side’ entities and being-with others con-stitute Dasein’s world. Dasein’s world is nothing other than the complex matrix of his relationships within this environmental world and the social world and the totality of their meaningfulness. Thus, the meaning of the world in both its environmental and social aspects is ultimately related to Dasein, which is the ultimate ‘for-the-sake-of-which’ and towards-which everything moves.

Not only in his noetic and relational dimensions, but also in his authentic and historical aspects, Dasein is presented as self-suffi-cient existence. The fallen Dasein is called back to his authentic self by the call of conscience. The subject who calls is the very fallen and anxious Dasein in his ‘not-at-homeness’. He calls himself to be his authentic possibility. When the fallen Dasein listens to his own call -- by wanting-to-have-a-conscience in resoluteness, in the given ‘Situation’ -- he moves towards authenticity. The anticipation of death as the ultimate possibility facilities this process. Thus, the anticipation of Dasein’s own death in resoluteness, i.e., anticipatory resoluteness, is that by which Dasein attains his authenticity. So Dasein needs none other than himself for his authenticity. Neither the environmental world, nor the social world has any influence on Dasein’s self-hood. In other words, Dasein’s authentic existence is attained neither by his ‘being-along-side’ entities, nor by his being-with the other Daseins; it is achieved rather by Dasein’s "being-oneself" in anticipatory resoluteness, i.e., in his anticipation of death as the final possibility in resolute reflection. Anticipation of death when seen as Dasein’s ‘being-towards-his-end’ not only leads Dasein to his authentic state, but also reveals to Dasein his com-pleteness and wholeness. Dasein, thus, understands his totality not in relation to anything else, but to himself.

The wholeness of Dasein and all that is said about Dasein is based on Dasein’s temporal nature. We can have a grasp of Dasein as a human existing reality only in relation to the three ecstases of temporality, viz., the ‘what-has-been’ (past), the ‘not-yet’ (future) and the ‘what-is’ (the present). This makes Heidegger clarify every previous notion regarding Dasein in the light of temporality in the later part of Being and Time. When this temporality is concretized -- and seen in relation to the stretch of life between birth and death of a reality -- then, we have the history of that reality. The study of such history or a number of such histories in relatedness is historiology. Thus, the temporal-historical nature of Dasein or that of any other entity in the world can be understood only in relation to Dasein. No science of historiology is possible if there is no historical Dasein who is the existential source of any scientific study of histo-rical events. Thus, both temporality and historicality can be under-stood only in relation to temporal-historical Dasein.

Our consideration of Dasein -- as existence, the existential horizon of every other reality, as projective understanding and as the basis of his own wholeness, authenticity, temporality and histori-cality -- clearly points to Dasein’s self-sufficiency. Having dwelled upon Dasein’s self-sufficient existence, we should move on to analyze Dasein in his finite and limited existence.

There are many sections in Being and Time which depict Dasein as inauthentic, swayed by moods, anxious, estranged and alienated. These sections present Dasein as an existence that is finite, helpless and dependent. Dasein’s disclosedness is characteri-zed by the ‘state-of-being’. William J. Richardson calls it Dasein’s "already-being-found-itself/(himself)-thereness". It is the experience of Dasein as being ‘placed’ in a given ‘Situation’. This state is characterized by various moods. Thus, in the state-of-being Dasein experiences himself as being thrown or being delivered over in a situation in which he is controlled by such various moods as anxiety, fear or joy . This thrownness is not only a handing over of Dasein to his own moods, but also a thrownness among entities, because Dasein always finds himself involved with realities other than him-self. This involvement with entities does matter to Dasein; often they too produce various moods in Dasein. Thus, the thrownness among entities involves Dasein’s submissiveness to, and helplessness before, the entities among which he is thrown. Here, we see Dasein’s being as limited by his moods with which he finds himself and by the entities among which he is ‘placed’.

The thrown factical Dasein is characterized by existential guilt (Schuld). This is not to be taken in the moral and legal sense of guilt, viz., as being indebted to, or responsible for. Here the term ‘guilt’ is taken in the existential and primordial sense. Guilt belongs to Dasein’s nature fundamentally and essentially. It is an existential lack in Dasein’s Being and consists in a twofold existential limita-tion. The first is related to Dasein’s thrownness. The thrown Dasein, as he finds himself in his thrown existence, is not able to choose his own ground or state-of-being. Concretely this means that the condi-tion, time and all such details of Dasein’s birth and early growth are determined for Dasein by his thrownness. Neither is Dasein able to get back behind his own thrownness and know the "how" and "why" of his thrownnes. This continues in one’s life, as one is thrown in various ‘situations’ without ever desiring them. This existential limitation makes Dasein groundless as he is not an explanation for his own thrown existence. In other words Dasein has no power over his ownmost being as he did not cause his existence. The second existential limitation consists in the constitution of Dasein’s choices. In the given existential ‘Situation’, Dasein is not free to choose all his possibilities. In choosing one possibility he has to give up all others. This unavoidable preclusion of all the other alterna-tives except the one chosen constitute the second existential limita-tion. Both existential limitations make Dasein’s existence ground-less and dependent in relation to the past ecstasis of Dasein.

Just as existential guilt and existential limitations keep Da-sein’s past in abeyance, so also does Dasein’s ‘being-towards-death’ with regard to his future. Because death is an existential of Dasein present with it from the moment of birth and because of the fact that it is Dasein’s ownmost possibility of the impossibility of his Being -- along with death’s indefiniteness as to when -- Dasein has no hold on his own being relating to the future. Thus, death brings a basic limitation of Dasein relating to the future as it makes Dasein’s existence finite.

As existential guilt, existential limitations and death point out to Dasein the groundless nature of his own existence relating to the past and the future respectively, Dasein feels a sense of unsettlement within himself. This expresses itself in the mood of anxiety. The anxious Dasein avoids facing his existential state-of-being (past) and existential death (future), and focuses himself only on the present ecstasis. Living only in the present leads Dasein to the state of fallen existence. The fleeing of Dasein from his own truth about himself presents a Dasein that is anxious and helpless.

In the state of fallen existence Dasein gets lost in the present involvement, so much so that Dasein is cut off from his past and the future. This results in a break-down in the temporal character of Dasein. Since Dasein is focused fully on the present , he loses his unique existence and gets lost in the ‘they’ which gives him a publicness in which his choices are determined by others. Here, life is characterized by everyday mediocrity. While far away from the truth about himself Dasein now believes that he is his true self. His thinking is characterized by ambiguity, his speech by idle-talk and his motive for action turns out to be curiosity. This is a state of alienation and estrangement in which Dasein runs away from anxiety that results from the awareness of existential guilt and existential death.

The analysis of Dasein’s state-of-being, existential guilt, existential limitations, death and fallen state clearly points to the finite, helpless, dependent and anxious Dasein, whose existence is marked by a tragic sense.

Heidegger II sees Dasein as essentially related to Being. Dasein’s meaning, truth and even authenticity are understood in the light of this relationship. This relationship is not causal, but an appropriating belonging-together in which Being and Dasein enter into each other’s realms. The task of Dasein is to be available for Being as a lighting-up-place for its revealing; Dasein is at the service of Being. This does not mean that Dasein is passive and at the mercy of Being, as Dasein plays the significant and active role of res-ponding to Being by receiving and preserving the truth of Being. In this section we will consider the role of Dasein as the lighting-up-place and the shepherd of Being. In doing so we will analyze Dasein’s Being-centered existence.

Dasein is the lighting-up-place of Being in its giving. The role of Dasein consists in being the ‘Da’ for Being to shine forth. It involves Dasein’s availability in openness to Being and saying a constant ‘yes’ to the call of Being. As an essential thinker Dasein, by his openness to Being, lets Being evoke thought in him. In other words, by opening himself to the call of Being, Dasein lets Being favor it with the gift of being an essential thinker. Being gives itself as ‘that which is most thought provoking’, i.e., as food for thought, and then withdraws itself. In so doing, Being presences itself to Dasein as withdrawing. In the process Being calls Dasein to think about that which is most thought-provoking which has withdrawn. Dasein is the playing-field or the lighting-up-place for this giving-withdrawing process of Being’s call to think. Even in the process of occurrence of essential thinking in release Dasein continues to be the ‘place’ of Being’s revealing. For Dasein opens himself to "that-which-regions"(Being) so that it can help Dasein to rise above the pushes and pulls of everyday existence and bring about a freedom in Dasein to be his self, thereby opening himself for release to occur.

Dasein’s ek-sisting consists in being attuned to the voice and the giving of Being. It is a standing-at or dwelling in the sphere of Being. Dasein is ek-sisting because he has already allowed himself to be the lighting up place for Being. Because Dasein has given himself to Being as a ‘locus’ for its manifestation, Dasein is able to dwell or ek-sist in the nearness of Being. In ek-sisting or dwelling in Being, Dasein continues to be the lighting-up-place of Being. In the occurrence of dwelling or ek-sisting Dasein remains a ‘home’ for Being’s arrival, in his poetic presencing. Being summons Dasein to itself by presenting itself as the Glad-some, the Holy, the Origin and the Ground. Here too, Dasein is, as it were, the screen in which the light of Being in its original giving shines forth.

The truth of Being -- Dasein’s essential relation of belonging-together to Being, the relation of difference between Being and beings, and the history as the spatio-temporal sending of Being -- is understood only in relation to Being’s giving of itself to Dasein, the lighting-up-place. Dasein knows his essential belonging-together to Being only when he is open to Being in the realm of Ereignis. Only by ‘being there’ for Being does Dasein know his oneness with Being. The ontological difference is that between Being and entities -- in the process of Being’s coming-over to entities revealing itself in entities, and the arrival of entities in which Being is concealed. All this is understood only in relation to Being’s giving of itself as the differ-ence in Dasein, viz. Being’s lighting-up-place. Again, the spatio-temporal nature of the history of Being, which is a play of Being, is also revealed in relation to the playing-field, viz. Dasein. It is in relation to the lighting-up-place of Being that Being in its temporal nature gives itself in the interplay of presencing and absencing of the three ecstases of time. Moreover, the spatial nature of Being shows itself in the mirror-play of the fourfold: the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals.

Thus, it is clear that Dasein is the lighting-up-place of Being at every stage of its manifestation. Though this role is receptive in nature, yet it is significant as it unfolds Being in its essential truth. Now, let us move on to the consideration of Dasein as the shepherd of being.

Our analysis of Dasein as the lighting-up-place of Being, might have left us with the impression that Dasein is totally subor-dinated to Being. Though Being’s role is primary in the Being-event, Dasein plays an active role besides that of being the lighting-up-place of Being. He actively responds to the call, summons and giving of Being , thereby preserving what he has received by being the lighting-up-place of Being. In this sense Dasein guards and she-pherds the presencing of Being in himself and in entities. This role of Dasein is our concern in this section.

As an essential thinker Dasein actively responds to Being. The response must be a corresponding response, i.e. a response that is on a par with the invitation. In essential thinking Being calls Dasein to thinking and gives food for thought. In other words, Being calls Da-sein to think meditatively on Being as the most thought-provoking. Dasein returns a corresponding response in re-calling and thanking. Dasein, firstly, recollects the call of Being in memory and thanks Being for the gift of itself as the most thought-provoking. Re-collection of the call opens up Being’s world to Dasein and lets him constantly keep it in his memory, while thanking makes Dasein accept the gift of Being as the most thought-provoking, and continue meditating on it. Thus, thanksgiving leads Dasein to continue think-ing of Being as the gift.

The re-collective thanking for Being’s gift of itself to Dasein opens him all the more for Being. In this opening of Dasein, Being as ‘that-which-regions’, manifests itself by its primordial regioning and effects in Dasein a freedom to be his self. Possessing this inner freedom Dasein responds to Being firstly by non-willing, which frees Dasein from the entanglement with things. Secondly, by his active waiting on Being, Dasein is released towards things and attains an openness to the mystery of Being. Thus, by corresponding response to the call, giving and regioning of Being, Dasein attains the state of release. In this responding to call, giving and regioning, Dasein positively preserves the gift of Being.

Such a released Dasein moves towards Being as ek-sisting, i.e. he begins to dwell in the nearness of Being. The process of movement towards dwelling, as we mentioned earlier is primarily the task of Being. To the Being which gives itself to Dasein in poetic presencing and calls Dasein, thereby, to dwell in its neighborhood, Dasein responds correspondingly by poetic dwelling in the poetic presencing of Being. The poetic dwelling of Dasein continues the original experience of homecoming that was brought about by Being and preserves it in the three ecstases of time, viz., the past, the future and the present. The past experience of Being is cherished in Dasein’s memory, not merely as something that happened in the past, but as the ‘having-been’ that has a relevance to the whole history of Dasein. The same experience is viewed not as something that is finished, but as something that continues and that is ‘yet-to-come’ in the future. The experience of Being is seen as a present reality to which Dasein gives expression in the present. Thus, Dasein by his poetic dwelling in the poetic presencing of Being continues to dwell in the nearness of Being. In this way Being is shepherded in Dasein’s own being.

Besides, shepherding Being in his self, Dasein also shepherds Being that is revealed in things by dwelling in the fourfold as the mortal. In other words, by dwelling in the fourfold Dasein spares Being in things and thereby builds things in their being. Dasein dwells in the fourfold by gathering together the fourfold, i.e., the three facets of Being. This shepherding of Being in things is done by Dasein by performing four function within the fourfold: saving the earth as the earth, receiving the sky as the sky, waiting on divinities as divinities and taking upon himself or initiating his own nature as the mortal. In the fourfold, Dasein shepherds the Being that is manifested in things.

In shepherding Being in Dasein’s own being and in things, Dasein becomes the seer of the truth of Being. The truth of Being -- the essential belonging-together of Being and Dasein, the relation of difference between Being and entities and the spatio-temporal history of Being -- can be seen, in the sense of experienced or realized, only when it is received by Dasein in the realm of Ereignis. Being raises Dasein to the level that is on a par with it in the realm of Ereignis. Dasein is a co-partner in this essential relationship with Being. It is only in the context of the belonging-together of Being and Dasein that the truth of entities, i.e. their essential difference from Being, is unfolded. Dasein is a co-player with Being in the play of the spatio-temporal history of Being. In this manner, Dasein plays an active role of receiving, responding and shepherding Being in its giving, and thereby becomes a seer of the truth of Being.

Dasein sees the truth of Being by his openness to the uncon-cealing process (aletheia) of Being and dwelling in language, the house of Being. When Being un-conceals itself, Dasein sees into the openness of Being. By this seeing into Being, Dasein lets Being look at Dasein. In this mutual look of Being and Dasein, there occurs the unconcealing process, in which Dasein’s seeing the truth of Being takes place. Again language, as the house of Being, protects and preserves Being by bringing into light its truth. Thus, in language the truth of Being is guarded. Dasein, by dwelling in language, corres-ponds to language or in other words is a co-speaker with the lan-guage that speaks. As a co-speaker, Dasein listens to the speaking of language and gives expression to what he has heard from language. By his seeing into the un-concealing process of Being and dwelling in language, the house of being, Dasein comes into a face-to-face contact with Being and its truth. In this process he shepherds Being and the truth he has experienced and continues to be the seer of the truth of Being. So we can conclude that Dasein, as related to Being in an essential way, actively participates in Being’s revealing of itself by shepherding Being’s truth in himself and in things.

Dasein attains authentic existence when -- having opened himself to the voice of Being -- he begins to focus more and more on Being rather than on himself. In other words, Dasein must base his life more on Being than on himself. This would involve a movement of Dasein from his self-centered existence to a Being-centered existence. Thus, the occurrence of authenticity in Dasein involves a single and a continuous process of Dasein moving from himself towards Being. But two movements are inherent in this single way of Dasein to authenticity, viz. the movement from self-centered exist-ence towards Being-centered existence. The clarification of these two movements will enable us to explain Dasein’s authenticity in this section.

Heidegger I claims that Dasein is self-sufficient in his knowing, in his relatedness to other realities and in his whole, authentic, temporal and historical existence, and depends on nothing else in any of these aspects. This seem to lack truth because a Dasein that is finite, left alone, anxious and dependent cannot be self-sufficient. Though one cannot deny Dasein’s uniqueness and his ability to understand, interpret and express in discourse, still to say that he is self-sufficient and without any dependency on anything would be an over-statement. Besides, a Dasein that is characterized by guilt, existential limitations and death as essential aspects of his nature cannot be the ultimate explanation for himself both in relation to his past and the future. Thus, a Dasein who is groundless regard-ing his past and future and runs away from accepting this funda-mental groundlessness of his existence and the anxiety that arises from it cannot be self-sufficient existence. From what we have said, it is clear that Dasein, as presented in Heidegger I, cannot be a self-sufficient existence, but is in need of help from outside himself.

Now, since Dasein is not self-sufficient and dependent, he is strictly speaking incapable of bringing about his own authentic personhood. Because Dasein basically stands alone reduced to his own limited resources, he cannot be the reason for his own authen-ticity. The call of conscience, which in fact is the call of the anxious Dasein in his ‘not-at-homeness’, cannot pull Dasein out of the mire of inauthenticity. The call of Dasein to himself to be his authentic self is comparable to a man who is sinking in the water trying to lift himself out by the hair on his head or to one blind man leading another. The resolute response of Dasein to his own call in the given existential ‘Situation’, and the anticipation of death facilitating this resolute return to one’s own being adds a heroic and tragic sense to Dasein’s existence. We do not want to deny the possibility of Dasein moving towards his authenticity in this manner. But the authenticity towards which Dasein moves is not genuine because Dasein tries to be his authentic self which is basically groundless and limited. Thus, we could say that the so-called authenticity of Heidegger I is incomplete and this state is nothing more than Dasein’s reflective acceptance of his own tragic existence. What is achieved in this reflection of Dasein on his finite existence is not genuine authen-ticity, but an understanding of his wholeness or completeness as a temporal-historical existence.

From what we have said, it follows that Dasein in his self-enclosed, lonely and self-centered existence cannot attain his genuine and authentic self-hood. As an existence that is cut off from genuine relationship with other realities, Dasein lives only for him-self and for the sake of his structural existence. Dasein’s involve-ment with other entities are conditioned by his own interest to maintain his self. Therefore, in order to attain genuine authenticity, Dasein must move from this self-centered existence. This ‘move-ment from’ is not a throwing out of Dasein’s earlier existence, nor is it a break with his past, but consists in a change in perspective. Dasein no longer views everything from the perspective of the enclosed, self-assertive and lonely self. It is a breaking of the shell within which Dasein has enclosed himself, a letting-go of the self , and opening to realities other than the self in a genuine and real way. Once Dasein comes out of this ‘walled-existence’ of self-centered living, genuine movement towards authenticity happens. In this process Dasein moves from self-centered existence to Being-centered existence and attains total authenticity.

The movement towards Being-centered existence is characterized by Dasein’s awareness of his own insufficiency to bring about genuine authenticity in his existence. In other words, Dasein begins to depend on Being rather than on his own self. This openness towards Being marks this state of existence. Dasein is also aware that he cannot take the first steps towards this movement, unless he is called, summoned and claimed by Being. It is not the anxious Dasein in his not-at-homeness that calls Dasein, but Being that initiates this movement by its revealing-concealing mode of giving. In revealing itself to Dasein Being conceals itself, but this with-drawing or concealing dimension of Being makes Dasein seek Being, respond to Being and preserve Being.

Every stage of Dasein’s movement towards authentic person-hood or Being-centered existence is characterized by this giving of Being in Dasein as the lighting-up-place of Being, and Dasein res-ponding to Being by shepherding and preserving this gift of Being. For example, at the stage of Dasein’s essential thinking, Being calls and gives, while Dasein re-calls the call of Being by re-collection and thanks for Being’s gift. Release is brought about by Being’s regioning and Dasein’s response of non-willing and waiting on Being. Dasein begins to be a dweller in the nearness of Being by Being’s poetic presencing and Dasein’s poetic dwelling on the poetic presencing of Being in the three ecstases of time. Dasein becomes the seer of the truth of Being when Being’s look (Blick) is reciprocated by Dasein’s seeing and when this mutual look, into each other’s realm, occurs in the process of revealing of Being. Again, Dasein sees Being in its truth by dwelling in language which houses Being, in the process of co-speaking with language which speaks of Being. Thus, Being’s giving and Dasein’s responding is an essential characteristic of Dasein’s state of total authenticity.

The giving of itself to Dasein on the part of Being and the receiving-responding to the giving of Being by Dasein clearly point to the nature of the relationship that exists between Being and Dasein as an one-to-one relationship. This is different from the pre-conceptual understanding of Being, of which Heidegger I spoke. It is an appropriating relationship of identity and belonging-together, which takes Dasein and Being to each other’s realms. Being claims Dasein for itself, while Dasein also claims Being in the sense that he lets himself be claimed by Being. Thus, in Being’s claim, Dasein claims Being.

In his movement towards Being-centered existence, Dasein not only is related to Being in an authentic manner, but also is related to all other entities. Dasein preserves and shepherds Being which not only is manifested in his person, but also as revealed in things. Firstly, in his essential relatedness to Being, Dasein points to the ontological difference, i.e., the relationship of difference between Being and entities. Secondly, Dasein shepherds Being in things by dwelling in the fourfold. Thus, Dasein’s task in Being-centered existence becomes the preservation of Being as it manifests in the fourfold. By saving the earth, receiving the sky, waiting on divinities and accepting his own nature as mortal by living as mortal, Dasein preserves Being in its physical, divine and human facets. This relationship of Dasein to entities is much deeper and more personal than Dasein’s relationship of concernful pre-occupation with entities that is stated in Heidegger I.

In the state of Being-centered existence, Dasein understands himself in a new way. His relationship with himself has changed immensely as his meaning, truth and authenticity are understood in his relationship with Being. Dasein is not alone in his self-enclosed and self-centered existence. In his genuine openness to Being and entities a new vision of himself has dawned on Dasein. There is no inconsistency regarding his nature: Dasein still remains the most powerful of all beings, the only being who can understand Being and enter into a relationship of belonging-together with it. At the same time, Dasein is not a self-sufficient existence as his destiny depends on Being. In fact, his openness to Being has raised Dasein to the state of Ereignis, thereby making Dasein the standard-bearer for Being. Dasein still is the same finite and limited being, characterized by existential guilt, existential limitations and existential death, be-sides, anxiety, fallenness and care. Yet Dasein is not uptight about these aspects of his nature, but instead accepts these unsettling dimensions of his nature with calmness and serenity. The reason for such a change in Dasein’s attitude is that, unlike the Dasein of Heidegger I, the authentic Being-centered Dasein does not face his finitude and limited existence all alone. Dasein’s finitude, including death, instead of effecting unsettling moods in Dasein, leads him back to Being, which is his ultimate ground. The reason for anxiety, struggle and the tragic sense is the inability of the self-centered Dasein to ground his own existence. Now that Dasein is grounded in Being, these unsettling dimensions of Dasein’s nature do not matter to him as much as before. Since Dasein is securely grounded in Being, all inconsistencies about his nature fall apart; as a result, Dasein dwells in security and peace.

Even though Being is the closest to Dasein, yet it is the farthest from Dasein. To put it differently, in spite of the fact of Dasein’s relationship of belonging-together to Being and his encountering of Being in Dasein’s own being and in that of entities, in some sense, Being is far away from Dasein. Being always remains a mystery to Dasein, who never can never get hold of the whole of Being. This is due to the way Being gives itself to Dasein, viz. in the revealing-concealing process. As soon as Being gives itself in an entity, it withdraws in favor of the entity in which Being is revealed. As a result, the entity is revealed and Being itself is concealed. Thus, Dasein cannot have the total experience of Being, but only experi-ences it as revealing and concealing, giving and withdrawing, pre-sencing and absencing. Being’s manner of giving makes Dasein continue his seeking of Being. Even in Being-centered existence, Dasein must continue to be the lighting-up-place of Being and continue to shepherd the revelation of Being in Dasein himself and in entities. In this continued seeking, receiving and shepherding of Being, Dasein moves from his self-centered existence towards Being-centered existence, in which alone consists his total authenticity.

Thus, total authenticity of Dasein occurs when Dasein moves from self-centered existence to Being-centered existence. It is a single process with inherent twofold movements. This is not to be understood in a spatio-temporal sense, even though space and time may be involved in the process. It consists fundamentally in a shift in perspective and attitude of Dasein towards his life and destiny. In the self-centered existence Dasein’s life, destiny and authenticity are understood as the task of Dasein alone, whereas in the Being-centered existence, the same are seen in the light of the appropriating belonging-together of Being and Dasein. In the former state Dasein is totally closed up in himself, while in the latter Dasein opens himself genuinely to Being, entities and himself. These threefold opennesses involve a shift in Dasein’s perspective. To the extent that Dasein effects this shift he moves towards Being-centered existence from self-centered existence and in the process becomes a totally authentic human person.

1. ID, p. 24; IAD, p. 36.

2. Cf. ID, pp. 24-25.; IAD, p. 14, fn. 1.

3. US, p. 259.; WL, p. 128. A good study of the notion of Ereignis is found in J.L. Mehta, Martin Heidegger: The Way and the Vision, pp. 430-444.

4. US. p. 260.; WL. p. 129; Cf. also Heinz C. Luegenbiehl, The Essence of Man: An Approach to the Philosophy of Martin Hei-degger (Ann Arbor: Microfilms, 1979), p. 106.

5. ID, p. 26.; IAD, p. 37.

6. Otto Poeggeler, "Being as Appropriation", p. 169.

7. Cf. SZ, p. 42.; BT, p. 68.

8. Cf. BH, Wegmarken, p. 330.; BW, p. 213.

9. Cf. BH, Wegmarken, pp. 327, 330; BW, pp. 210, 213.

10. Cf. VA, p. 171.; PLT, p. 179.

11. We do not use the phrase ‘self-centered existence’ with any religious or moral significance in the sense of ‘selfishness’ as op-posed to ‘altruism’, but as meaning that existence of Dasein that is focused on his own existence.

12. James M. Demske, Being, Man, Death: A key to Heidegger, p. 184.