Heidegger uses the German term ‘Geviert’ to refer to Being. It is related to the German term ‘Vier’, which means number four. The prefix ‘ge’ has a 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). A thing, in the Heideggerian sense of the term, 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’ constitute 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 understood when we consider it in relation to all these aspects of Being. Let us, for example, 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. The authentic essence of the flower can be understood only in relation to the fourfold: It is the earth in which the flower is grown; the sky has given it sun and rain; the divinities in whose honor it is placed at the alter; 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 shall 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 them fruitful. 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 that the stars shine. Changes in season, the light and the dusk of the day, gloom and glow of the night, good and bad weather, the moving clouds and the blue depth of the ether — all happen in the sky. The divinities (Goettlichen) 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. 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 presences 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 who have a relationship of presencing to Being as Being.9 

"Appropriation," says Heidegger, "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 same as (to auto) `A’. This `is’ and `to auto’ in the principle of identity suggests the idea of every being is, in itself, the same with itself. In other words, there is an identity to every being, 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, in fact, refers to Being of beings, Heidegger refers to the fragment of Parmenedes.12 The fragment reads: "To gar auto noein estin to kei einai" and it is rendered in English as "thinking and Being (das Sein) are the same".13 For Heidegger, like any other translation of pre-Socratic terms and definitions, 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 presence (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 of equality (Gleichgueltigkeit) or of indifference (Einerleiheit), but rather it 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 (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 a part of a unity, a manifold or a system. This is what the metaphysical thinking refers to as ‘connectio’, i.e. a necessary connection or a casual relation of one with another.20 For Heidegger, such a way of considering is onto-theol-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 in a manifold or system, but rather the related belong to each other in the same.22 In other words, there exists an appropriating relationship between the related, that they let each other enter into their realms by their belonging-together.

Understood in the former sense of ‘belonging-together’, the belonging-together of Being and man 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, as a thinker of Being and a dweller in the nearness of Being, he 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 (Anwessenheit) can come-to-pass only when Being appropriates man and finds in him a clearing place for its presencing.25 On this point Heidegger 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, and of Being to man, and an entry into the realms of each other. In turn, it brings about in man and Being a genuine and deeper belonging to each other.28 The mutual belonging-together is a dedicating (Zueignen) 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 other types of relationships metaphysics bespeaks between man and Being, such as, causal and other relationships.29 No metaphysical thinking can help us to experience this belonging-together of Being and man; it can be experienced only when one enters the event of appropriation (Ereignis).30 

Heidegger considers Being (das Sein) always as the Being of beings. Therefore, every being (Seiende) must be understood in relation to Being. It means that we cannot speak of Being having a separate and independent existence as a reality, because, were it so 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 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 difference34 between the two. Heidegger calls this difference between Being and beings an ontological difference. What he means by it is not a mere rational distinction35 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 The forgetting of this ontological difference between Being and beings is the same as the forgetfulness of Being. "The forgetfulness of Being 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, Heidegger in questioning the difference as difference 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. The Being, as we mentioned earlier, 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’ (Ueberkommnis).41 Ueberkommnis is 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. But, rather, Being’s ‘coming-over’ consists in Being’s giving over of itself to beings and thereby un-concealing or revealing (ent-bergend) beings in themselves. Beings themselves come-to-presence only in and through this ‘coming-over’ and unconcealing process of Being. This, on the part of beings, 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 ‘concealment (Bergend) of Being. Therefore, the un-concealment of beings is the concealment of Being. This ‘coming-over’ and revealing of beings on the part of Being and the ‘arrival’ and concealing of 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, 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 conceals Being.44 In this process beings are grounded in Being. To quote Heidegger: "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, Unterschied (differentiating) is a revealing-concealing perdurance, which is a mutual circling (Uneinanderkreisen) of Being and beings around each other;46 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 

Being mediates between beings and establishes mutual relationship between them. As beings are mediated by Being, they are called the ‘mediated’. But, Being which is the source of this mediation itself is not mediated by anything other than itself. Being is a going-forth, an emergence and an opening-up that enables beings to be present and related to each other. The emergence, the opening-up and the going-forth are from within Being. So Being is Immediate. Being, the Immediate as the open, lights up beings and makes them shine forth to each other and to Dasein. But, Being itself is absolutely ultimate and does not need any form of mediation to open itself up to Dasein and to beings, because it is the Immediate that is inaccessible.49 

Being is essentially presencing. The manner in which it presences itself is one of coming (Ad-vent). Being always advances towards Dasein and its coming is always new and original. Thus, Being’s advent is temporal. Though it is temporal, it is not limited to the time-spans (Zeiten) measured by man. Being’s continuous coming to Dasein and to beings is not older than time, for it is time in its origin. Being’s coming is the ‘oldest’ time, as time originated in Being’s coming; yet it is the ‘youngest’ time, because the coming of Being never gets old. That is why the progress of history, i.e., Being’s coming, is ever new.50 

Being is Spirit because it not only makes every being present, but also it be-spirits them. Because of this be-spiriting activity of Being, it unifies all beings and makes them appear in its collectedness, i.e., in its own Omni-presence. By unifying all beings in its unique presence, Being arranges all beings into a pattern of relationships, which Heidegger calls Being’s ‘essential thoughts’. This would imply that the unifying arrangement is Spirit’s ‘thinking’ and the pattern of relationship is its ‘thoughts’. Thus, Being, as Spirit, orders everything in the realm of beings, and the unified pattern of presencing all in its Omni-presence becomes the matrix of relationship, by reason of which beings can encounter each other. In this manner Being, as the Spirit, becomes the Law, which is Immediate and that mediates every relationship among beings.51

Being is characterized as the Glad-some (das Heitere).52 This term explains Being in terms of the metaphor of light. It suggests not only the brightness proper to light, but also the serenity, light-heartedness and pleasantness that are associated with joy. Glad-some is the supremely Joyous, and the source of man’s joy. Being, as Glad-some, communicates joyousness and light. With its splendor, Being, as Glad-some, lights up the disposition of men so that they may open themselves to all that is noble and benign in life.53 

When Being, as Glad-some with its light and conserving power, guards and maintains the integrity of every being, it gives itself as the Holy. Glad-some and the Holy, therefore, are one and the same. Holy here means neither God nor gods. It is beyond gods and men, which guarantees to both the integrity of their being. Therefore, Being is not only that by which gods and men are; but also that by which they are holy. Being is also the Holy because it is the continual Coming, eternal Origin, undefiled Hailing and unapproachable Immediacy. Being, as Holy, has two characteristics. Firstly, Being by its coming breaks down all ordinary patterns of everydayness in Dasein and opens him to its milieu. Secondly, Being, the Holy, is the eternal ‘heart’ of all beings, because it is the innermost source of their presence and their original time. In short, Being as the Holy is the perpetual Coming (Advent) that is the steadfast Law of be-spiriting beings, through which the relationship of beings is mediated.54 

Heidegger characterizes Being as the Source. This does not mean that the Source is hidden in the earth and sends forth waters to the unhidden world. Being, as the Source, is not hidden; rather in its giving it reveals. But in the moment of its revelation as the Source, it conceals itself. This is because Being, as the Source, in giving rise to what springs up from it, hides itself in what has sprung up from it, in order to remain itself as the Source. Thus, the self-withdrawal of the Source in giving rise to beings implies a withholding of Being so that it can truly be the Source. There is an element of mystery in this withdrawing and withholding dimension of Being.55 

When Being, as the Source, is seen as the Source that is essentially a superabundance and continual overflowing, then it is the Origin (Ursprung). Being, as the Origin, implies that it gives itself out exuberantly and continually, that it surpasses itself and gives itself to itself, as if something is lacking in itself. Thus, Being, as the Origin, gives us the idea of Being’s ‘self-surpassing self-adequacy’ in the continual giving of itself as the source.56 When Being, the Source, is viewed as the steadfast source that never gives itself out completely, then Being is the Ground. As the Ground, Being gives rise to beings, but does not lose itself in the process. Instead it remains completely as the Source. Thus, Being, as the Ground, is the self-retaining Source that ‘holds fast’ to itself as the Source, while enabling support and existence to what derives from it. Only because Being is the Origin, i.e., the overflowing and superabundant Source, is it the Ground, viz., the steadfast and self-retaining Source.57 

In the metaphor of Being as Expanse, it is viewed as an open domain and a broad area that is completely free. Here Being gathers every being unto itself and all beings towards one another, that each being can rest within itself and among themselves. Thus, Being, as Expanse, is a gathering process and a horizon in which beings can be gathered together. This primordial openness that gathers every being unto itself, implies time and space and, thus, it is spatio-temporal.58 

Being is Simple, in the sense that it is one and unconstituted. Its strength does not consist in power and control; but in gentle insistence. It reaches out to man without any mediation from outside itself, and waits for man to discern its gentle ways. Being, as the Simple, appears always in a hidden but effective manner and brings blessings upon man. The Simple appeals to man on his pathway and solicits him to abandon himself in itself. Being, as the Simple, makes the appeal in the symbol of an oak tree, as it points to the secret of long and slow growth. Growth involves being open to the heavens and rooted in the earth, just like the oak tree. The appeal of the Simple and the One is addressed to man, to whom the Simple has an essential relationship.59 

Being, as the Open, is ‘the Non-concealed’ (das Unverborgene). The Open involves the matrix of relationships, in which Dasein’s potentialities are brought to the fore. Being, as the Open, is the realm in which Dasein encounters the ‘to-be-known’. It is the sphere, in which Dasein’s potentialities are exploited in terms of actual contact with beings. Thus, Dasein’s encounters take place in the Open, while standing in the Open and encountering the ‘to-be-known’; Dasein experiences ‘something-that-is-open’ (das Offenbare), ‘that-which-comes-to-presence’ (das Anwesende), and ‘that-which-is’, i.e., a being, and at the same time experiences the Open as different from it. It is the openness of Dasein to Being as the Open, and his being in the Open makes it possible for him to experience being that-is-open and that-which-comes-to-presence. Thus, Being, as the Open, provides Dasein with the realm in which all encounters take place.60 

Being is the Gathering-process that brings beings together into a unity and makes them abide by reason of the Gathering-process. The bringing together of beings in the Gathering-process is not a piling together in a disorganized manner, but a laying of beings side by side according to a set pattern. In other words, by Being’s Gathering-process, beings are held fast in an order so that they can stand on their own being. Thus, Being’s Gathering-process brings about a gathering together of beings, which results in an ordered collectedness of beings. In this manner the gathering activity of Being ends up in an arrangement and organization that is whole and complete.61 Being is the original Source of this gathering activity and the collectedness that emerges from it. Being, as the Gathering-process, lights up beings in their being, makes them come-to-presence and lets them lie forth in unconcealment as themselves.62

Summing up Being’s various characteristics, William J. Richardson concludes: "Being is Wealth, Treasure, a hidden Fullness. It is an inexhaustible Wellspring — ineffable ! — the Simple, the All, the Only, the One. Beyond this, we dare not say anything about Being `itself’ at all; we must simply leave it without name."63 Now that we have seen the nature and characteristics of Being, we shall move on to consider the manifestation of Being as Dasein Encounters History.

Heidegger speaks of the giving (Geben) of Being as ‘presencing’ (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, the giving of Being as presencing is a letting-presence (Anwesenlassen), i.e., letting what is present be open in the presencing of Being.64 By letting what is present free into the open, by letting it belong to the presencing of Being,65 it makes possible the letting presence of what is present;66 this is the giving of Being.67 

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) 68 to entities reveals beings and at their ‘coming-on’ (An-kommen) or ‘arrival’ (An-kunft), the Being is concealed. In ‘coming-over’ as presencing (Aswessen) and as giving (Geben) of Being there is an in-built concealment; this 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."69 So, for Heidegger, the giving of Being is ". . . the giving (that) holds itself back and withdraws."70 He calls this giving a sending (Schicken) of Being.71 It is in the light of this giving or sending that Heidegger sees history. So, history is always history of Being. Thus, what constitutes the history (Geschichte) of Being is the sending (Schicken) or the giving (Geben) of Being.72 

From what we have said, we can conclude that the history of Being (Seinsgeschichte) is not essentially an occurrence (Geschehen), though occurrence is involved in history, but that 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 ‘epoche’.73 Thus, we can speak of various epochs of the sending of Being. In other words, history as epochal is a fundamental 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. To put it in Heidegger’s words: ". . . the actual holding back (epoche) of itself [Being] in favor of . . . the gift [beings], that is, of Being with regard to the grounding of beings."74 In other words, ". . . as it reveals itself in beings, Being withdraws."75 Thus, the withdrawal aspect is something that 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, along with Heidegger, ask for the reason as to the epochal nature of the sending or the history of Being. It leads Heidegger to analyze the notion of time. Presencing (Anwesen) of Being, though it has a reference to the present (Gegenwart), also shows itself as an extending (Richen) 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 it presences in its absence and still concerns man. In other words, the presencing is extended in the ‘what-has-been’ in the mode of the presencing the absence of ‘what-has-been’. Presencing, as the absence of ‘what-is-not-yet’ (future) is extended in the mode of presencing 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. So presencing lasts (wahrt), in the sense of abiding (verweilen) or is extended (reichen) in man, as the present, the past as ‘what-has-been’ and the future as ‘what-is-not-yet’.76 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’.77 The unity of these three dimensions of time by continuous mutual extending is an interplay (Zuspiel), which Heidegger refers to as a ‘simultaneous time’ (das Gleich-Zeitige).78 By bringing these three dimensions into a mutual interplay, the extending determines all the other three, and is, as it were, the fourth dimension. "True time," says Heidegger, "is four dimensional."79 

From our analysis of the nature of time, it is clear that though time is simultaneous by its fourth dimension of 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,80 while the presencing of the present is in the mode of presencing.81 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."82 

Thus, Being sends and time extends. The sending of Being and extending of time belong together in the realm of Ereignis.83 Being, as presencing, sends, while time as the realms of open (Berich des Oeffenen) is that in and through which Being’s sending can show itself. Thus, Being and time are interrelated, as the sending of Being always shows itself in time. Heidegger, in his letter to William J. Richardson, 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]."84 In other words, Being, as presencing, 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, and 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 withdrawal aspect of Being’s sending is nothing other than the temporal character of Being’s sending.85 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, 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 towards one another. It, in turn, leads to the mutual appropriation of the four. None of the four insists upon its own separate particularity. But 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 onefold of the four is ventured."86 Thus, the mirror-play of the fourfold does not stress so much on the four, but on the onefold of the four.

The mirror-play of the simple onefold of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals, for Heidegger, constitutes the world. The fouring, i.e. the unity of the four, in the appropriating mirror-play is the worlding of the world.87 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.88 

 

Thus, for Heidegger, "Things bear world. World grants things."89 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 fourfold into onefold, Heidegger calls, "the ring-dance of appropriating."90 

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.91 The term ‘Being’ with the cross mark points to the concealing 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.92 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.

Being’s manifestation in its historical unfolding 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. It is determined by extending (Reichen) and a worlding process by the mirror-play (Spiegel-spiel) of the fourfold, which is brought about by the fouring of the four in the onefold.93 Having outlined the spatio-temporal character of Being’s manifestation, Heidegger attempts to raise the question of the ‘why’ of this giving of Being. We turn our attention to this question in the next section.

To the question as to the ‘why’ of the spatio-temporal sending of Being or of the history of Being as un-concealing and concealing, Heidegger says that it is a play of Being. It is a time-space-play which Being sends to man,94 and which is a lighting process in which entities can appear.95 It is a play in which ‘time times’, ‘space spaces’, ‘thing things’ and ‘world worlds’.96 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.97 

Speaking on the background of Leibniz’s principle of sufficient 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 calculative thinking.98 The play does not allow any causal, planneout patterns.99 It is similar to a child playing draughts.100 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."101 The play, says Heidegger, has no parallels among entities.102 

Ereignis is rendered in English as ‘appropriation’ or ‘the event of appropriation’. We could briefly clarify the notion of ‘Ereignis’ by analyzing the term etymologically. Speaking of the term ‘Ereignis’, Heidegger speaks of it as a ‘key word’ (Leitwort) that cannot be pluralized, but is a singulare tantum. Strictly speaking it is untranslatable. To quote him: "As such a key term, it can no more be translated than Greek ‘logos’ or Chinese ‘Tao’."103 In the common usage ‘Ereignis’ means an event or happening. Heidegger speaks of its etymological affinity with two root words: ‘er-eigen’ and ‘er-augnen’. The former is related to German ‘eigen’ (own) and in this sense ‘Ereignis’ means to come to one’s own or to come to where one belongs. The latter word is related to the German ‘Auge’ (eye), meaning to catch sight of, to see with the mind’s eye or to see face-to-face. If we put these two meanings together, Ereignis gives the sense of being far removed from everyday events or something which we see with our mind’s eye; yet it is something so close to us that we cannot see it, i.e., it is something to which we belong.104 This is clear when Heidegger speaks of Ereignis as ". . . the most inconspicuous of the inconspicuous phenomenon, the simplest of the simplicities, the nearest of the near, and the farthest of the far, in which we mortals spend our life."105 Here we notice a sense of mystery in Heidegger’s consideration of the Ereignis. Being is different from Ereignis and only in the realm of Ereignis can Being be thought of. "Being . . . in respect of its essential origin can be thought of in terms of appropriation."106 

Ereignis is the realm in which the truth of Being manifests. Therefore, Being must be understood in and through the realm of Ereignis. In other words, thinking of Being reaches its purity and perfection when it is thought from the realm of Ereignis. It is not available to the representative-calculative thinking and to individual experiences of men. It is, rather, given to the essential thinker, the poetic dweller, the seer and the shepherd, in his realization of his belonging-together with Being. "The event of appropriation is that realm, vibrating within itself, through which man and Being reach each other in their nature."107 Ereignis is ". . . Dasein’s complete Self-realization in Being and Being’s appropriation (Zueignen)"108 of Dasein. Having analyzed the nature of the realm of Ereignis we move on to study its characteristics.

Ereignis, i.e., the event of appropriation, is the fundamental realm in relation to which Dasein experiences Being. Firstly, Ereignis, as the realm of Dasein’s experiencing of Being, makes the relationship of belonging-together between Being and Dasein possible. Heidegger, speaking of this mutual appropriation of Being and man in the realm of Ereignis, says that man belongs to Being in that he listens to the voice of Being and is appropriated to Being.109 Being belongs to Dasein in that only he can provide a place for Being to become present.110 In this manner "man and Being are appropriated to each other . . . [and] belong to each other".111 Thus, the belonging-together of man and Being is a mutual dedicating and appropriating which happens in the realm of Ereignis.112 It is only in the event of appropriation that Being and Dasein reach out to each other and their true essence is manifested to each other. To quote Heidegger: "The event of appropriation is that realm, vibrating within itself, through which man and Being reach each other in their nature".113 This belonging-together of Being and Dasein in the realm of appropriation becomes the foundation of Dasein’s experience of Being in beings and manifestation of Being in history.

Secondly, the realm of Ereignis not only reveals to Dasein his mutual belonging-together to Being, but also the difference between Being and beings. Even though Being is always Being of beings and beings are always beings of Being,114 still there is difference between them. Meaningful thinking of Being, for Heidegger, means "to think of it in its difference with beings and of beings in the difference with Being".115 Being, in revealing itself in beings, chooses to withdraw itself in favor of beings, in the process grounding a `between’ them in which Being can ground beings in their existence, even though Being itself is concealed.116 Thus, Ereignis is the realm in which Dasein encounters, in his belonging-together to Being, the true nature of Being and its relationship with beings as the difference.

Thirdly, Ereignis is the realm in which the relationship of Being to Dasein and beings is manifested in the spatio-temporal history. The self-giving of Being takes place in presencing and absencing due to the temporal nature of Being’s giving and Dasein’s experiencing of the giving of Being. The presencing of the ‘having-been’ (the past) and the ‘not-yet’ (the future) is in the mode of absencing, while the presencing of the present is in the mode of presencing.117 As soon as Being gives itself to beings and grounds beings by lighting them up, the moment of lighting up becomes the ecstasis of the past; in the process Being itself is withdrawn. Thus, Being’s giving is temporal. The spatial giving of Being is unfolded in relation to the fourfold, the different facets of Being. According to Heidegger, the mutual expropriative appropriating of the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals constitutes Being’s manifestation in the spatial aspect.118 Thus, the interplay of the three ecstaces of time, viz., the ‘having-been’, the ‘not-yet’ and the present, and the mirror-play of the fourfold, in which the historical manifestation of Being takes place, is available only in the realm of Ereignis, in which exists the mutual belonging-together of Being and Dasein.

Fourthly, it is the realm of Ereignis that reveals history as the play of Being. The time-space-play of Being, which is the history of Being, is that which Being sends to man. 119 It is Being’s lighting process in which beings are grounded in Being.120 In this play of Being ‘time times’, ‘space spaces’, ‘thing things’ and ‘world worlds’.121 This play of Being, which makes history possible, takes place in the realm of Ereignis, in which Dasein is a co-player with Being.

Fifthly, the realm of Ereignis which opens Dasein to the aletheia of Being is a revealing that conceals, a giving that withdraws and a presencing that absences. Heidegger says that the two are not different, but "both sending itself and withdrawing itself are but one and same . . .",122 in which the mittence of Being is manifested in history. Aletheia involves an opening that lights up and a playground123 in which the clearing of Being occurs. Thus, the sheltering of Being in aletheia, which implies mutual looking at on the part of Dasein and Being,124 is revealed only in the realm of Ereignis.

Sixthly, Ereignis involves a ‘step-back’ from metaphysical thinking. According to Heidegger, metaphysics is a science of being as being. Its prime concern is not Being (Sein), but the beingness of beings. The beingness of beings was unified in the highest entity, which Aristotle called the first cause and the unmoved mover, and the later thinkers identified as God. Metaphysics insofar as it is a study of entities in their abstract universal beingness is ontology. And, insofar as it attempts to inquire into entities as fundamentally grounded in the highest entity — which is the ultimate reason for their beingness — metaphysics is theology.125 Ontology and theology are not two parts of metaphysics; rather metaphysics is both at the same time as the beingness of beings is grounded in the highest being. Thus, for Heidegger, metaphysics is onto-theo-logic.126 Heidegger is of the opinion that metaphysics began to be onto-theo-logic, ever since the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. That metaphysical tradition was solidified during the middle ages, continued through the modern period and culminated in the nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche.127 Thus, from Plato to Nietzsche there runs unbroken metaphysical thinking, which takes the form of subjectism especially since Descartes; it is consummated in Nietzsche’s philosophy, which has led to forgetfulness of Being as Being.128 Metaphysical thinking led to what Heidegger refers to as representational thinking (Vorstellendes Denken), in which the original insights contained in the pre-Socratic thinking have been replaced by the representational and intellectual concepts. As these metaphysical notions dominated every aspect of philosophy, thinking comes to be representation of ideas and truth comes to be the correctness of these representations, localized in a statement. This, in turn, led to the emergence of logic as the science of thinking.129 With the emergence of logic as the science of thinking, rational thinking began to dominate over the Being of beings.130 The movement of the rise of logic and reason over Being, reached its peak when logic was considered as the arbitrator of what is true and false, that is, when the principle of contradiction established itself as the most important law of logical thinking which no one could question.131 Metaphysics, as a science of the beingness of beings and logic as a science of thinking could not really be separated in the development of Western philosophy, as logical categories and principles were, in fact, metaphysical. This, in turn, brought about subject-object thinking in modern philosophy and gave it an epistemological orientation, in the process forgetting to consider Being as Being.132 Heidegger, in criticizing the traditional metaphysical thinking, does not totally deny the role of logic in thinking. But, he points out that the realm of knowledge should not be reduced to logic and reason alone, because deeper dimensions of life and reality and their meaning do not consist merely in logical coherence, but rather rest on existential experience. Thus, though Heidegger is not against reason and logic, he warns against the type of thinking that gives credit only to logic and that considers as false anything that cannot be explained in terms of logic. In saying this Heidegger asserts that only by attempting a ‘step-back’ from the metaphysical thinking can one make an entry into the realm of Ereignis wherein the experiencing of Being as Being is possible.

Finally, the realm of Ereignis involves moving away from technological thinking. It is characterized by the modern scientific method of strict logical verification and the technological attitude of domination. Modern scientific method implies research. With the help of research the world is organized by bringing into play the power of calculating, planning and molding all things.133 There are three elements in modern scientific research, viz., the rigor of procedure, experimentation and institutionalization. The rigor of procedure consists in determining the area of scientific investigation in the realm of things. It is carried out according to a strictly planned project and is characterized by mathematical precision and exactness.134 Experimentation involves scientific procedure, which begins by setting forth a hypothesis and the objectification of facts from which laws relating to their necessity and constancy are formulated. Institutionalization is aimed at guaranteeing the ongoing activities, such as specialization and specific forms of investigation of scientific research.135 Besides the scientific method, there is what Heidegger calls the technological attitude of domination that is essential for the effective continuation of technological thinking. It is more aggressive than the scientific method and research. While the scientific researcher considers natural objects as something to be studied and investigated, a technologist looks for ways of exploiting the same object as a source of energy and power.136 In other words, scientific research would investigate nature and its usability with mathematical precision, while the technological attitude would aim at actually realizing and exploiting the potencies of the object.137 Thus, technological attitude is a type of will-to-power which looks upon nature only as something that can be known, manipulated and used. Machines are tools to enact man’s domination over nature.138 The scientific method, with its pre-planned, rigorous and mathematical approach of scientific research and the technological attitude with its manipulative and dominative tendencies lead to what can be called calculative thinking (rechnendes Denken). This consists in having a realistic and pragmatic view of life and reality. It is characterized by the unsentimental and businesslike outlook, which turns circumstances to advantage to attain an end. It involves meticulous planning and careful calculation whose ultimate aim is control or total power. This, in turn, results in man’s everyday life becoming a struggle in the market place.139 Man must move away from such manipulative thinking and acting in order to make the ‘unbridged entry’ into the realm of Ereignis and the experience Being in its giving.

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, Dasein, by opening himself to the call of Being, lets Being favor Dasein 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 the occurrence of essential thinking in release Dasein continues to be the ‘place’ of Being’s revealing in that Dasein opens himself to "that-which-regions" (Being). This helps Dasein to rise above the pushes and pulls of everyday existence and brings about a freedom in Dasein to be his self, thereby opening himself for release.140

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.141 

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. We saw above that ontological difference is the relation of difference 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. This is understood only in relation to Being’s giving of itself as the difference in Dasein, viz. Being’s lighting-up-place. Again, the spatio-temporal nature of the history of Being, which is a play of Being, also is revealed in relation to the playing-field, viz., Dasein. It is in relation to Dasein, 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. Here also the spatial nature of Being shows itself in the mirror-play of the fourfold of earth, sky, divinities and mortals.142 

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 Dasein 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 continues meditating on it. Thus, thanksgiving leads Dasein to continue thinking of Being as the gift.143 

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 a corresponding response to the call, giving and regioning of Being, Dasein attains the state of release. In this response Dasein positively preserves the gift of Being.144 

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 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., past, future and 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 i relevant to the whole history of Dasein. The same experience is viewed not as something finished, but as continuing and ‘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.145 

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 shares 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 a 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.146 

By shepherding Being Dasein sees its truth. As the seer of the truth of Being Dasein is called by Being to be the guardian and preserver of this truth of Being. Mans’ attempt to bring dignity to himself as the lord of the world ultimately ends in failure. Therefore, the manner in which he needs to exercise this task is not one of dominating over and taking control of beings, but rather of waiting on, and attending to, Being by thinking of Being and dwelling in its neighborhood. Dasein is not a stranger to the neighborhood, as he has been close to the nearest of the near.147 By dwelling in the nearest of the near and shepherding Being, Dasein sees the truth of Being. Dasein, the seer is ". . . a shepherd, who attends on and watches over . . . [and thereby] sees the revealing-concealing play of Being".148 Thus, the seer is a person "who has seen the totality of what is present [Being] in its presencing",149 both by revealing and concealing.150 The seeing is determined by the eye, but also by the lighting of Being that had been given to him as the shepherd.151 The seer sees "because the lighting-up . . . of Being has been visited upon him".152 In the visiting of Being upon Dasein, he attains the greatest dignity of the seer of the truth of Being.

Dasein sees the truth of Being by his openness to the unconcealing 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 its truth into light. Thus, in language the truth of Being is guarded. Dasein is called to be a friend of the house (Hausfreund) of Being. The friend of the house of Being is the nearest to Being and he has affection for the house of Being. He is ready for a primordial dwelling in the house of Being, language.153 Thus, Dasein, by dwelling in language, corresponds to language. In other words, Dasein is a co-speaker with the language that speaks. As a co-speaker, Dasein listens to the speaking of language and gives expression to what he has heard from language. Dasein, thus, by his seeing into the un-concealing process of Being and dwelling in language, the house of being, comes into a face-to-face contact with Being and its truth, and thereby shepherds the truth he has experienced. In shepherding Being and its truth, Dasein continues to be the seer of the truth of Being.154 So we can conclude that Dasein, as related to Being in an essential way, actively participating in Being’s revealing of itself by shepherding Being’s truth in himself and in things.