The essential thinking of Being does not consist merely in having an opinion about something. It is neither a representing, nor the development of a conceptual system of thinking with a chain of logical premises which lead to valid and certain conclusions. Besides, it cannot be brought under any logical categories, and hence is neither practical nor theoretical; rather, it comes to pass before all these distinctions.1 Thus, thinking of Being overcomes onto-theo-logical thinking and language.2 Such thinking is non-subjective, non-representative and non-logical in the sense of pre-subjective, pre-representative and pre-logical respectively. This means that this thinking is not irrational, but pre-rational;3 it is anti-logic, yet not illogical.4 Speaking about his book, What Is Called Thinking?, Heidegger says that it not a treatise on thinking. He admonishes his students that they must not think about what thinking is;5 rather they should learn to think.6 Heidegger uses many names to refer to this thinking of Being (Seinsdenken): meditative thinking (besinnliches Denken),7 essential thinking (wesenliches Denken),8 primordial thinking (anfaenliches Denken),9 recollective thinking (andenkendes Denken)10 and courageous thinking (herzhaftes Denken).11 Now we shall move on to analyze its nature and characteristics.

Clarifying the meaning of the title of his book, What Is Called Thinking?, Heidegger speaks of the four possible ways in which it can be interpreted. Firstly, it can refer to the question about the meaning of the word ‘thinking’. Secondly, it can mean what thinking signifies in the history of thought. Thirdly, it can be a question about the pre-requisites needed to think rightly. Fourthly, the question can also mean: "What calls us into thinking?", or "What evokes thinking in us?"12 Heidegger, while recognizing the validity of each of these interpretations, holds to the fourth interpretation as it decisively poses the question, in spite of the fact that it is foreign to common understanding.13 The fourth interpretation, viz., "What is it that directs us into thought and gives us direction for thinking?"14 already presupposes that there is a relation between Being and thinking as between the caller and the called.15 Thus, essential thinking involves a call from Being which evokes thought in Dasein and a response from Dasein. Our analysis of the nature of essential thinking in this section will consist in treating it as a call of Being and a response from Dasein.

Heidegger says: "We never come to thoughts. They come to us".16 Essential thinking is not something which man can do as and when he wants. Man can be an essential thinker only in so far as he stands in the `lighting’ of Being.17 In this process Being is primary, for thinking belongs to Being. Dasein is able to think only because he is enabled (vermoegen) to think. The enabling is a favor (Moegen) Being bestows on man,18 thereby presencing man in his essence, i.e., as an essential thinker.

Being enables thinking in man because ‘it wants’ (es braucht)19 thought and ‘there is need for’ thinking. "By reason of its nature Being must itself be served, tended, guarded by thought, and hence is ‘in want of’ thought in order to be itself." 20 There is a relationship between Being’s giving (es gibt) and Being’s wanting (es braucht).21 Thus, Being’s giving itself is its wanting itself. In wanting itself to be thought, Being gives itself to thought. In this wanting is concealed an appeal that calls forth thought.22 Thus, Being calls man to think. The call of Being is not a periodical one nor is man’s thinking an occasional human activity, for the former is something constant while the latter is something essential to man. Man is a thinker only because he is called to think.23 

The German term ‘heissen’ (to call) has a variety of meanings, such as invite, instruct, demand and direct. It is related to the word ‘keleuein’ which means ‘to get something underway’, The old use of the term ‘heissen’ also means ‘letting reach’ (gelassen lassen). Thus, the term ‘heissen’ in its original use has the notion of ‘helpfulness’.24 The analysis of the term ‘heissen’ clearly points to the fact that that which calls us to think helps us to think, by giving itself to think. Heidegger says: "What calls us to think, gives food for thought".25 That which gives food for thought is "that which is eminently thought-worthy" (das Bedenklichste),26 viz., Being, which gives to thought its to-be-thought.

The mode in which Being gives itself to thought is one of withdrawing. In other words, what calls on us to think and gives food for thought gives itself as withdrawing. Withdrawal is not totally negative in the sense of absence of Being, but something real and actual. It is not nothing, but the presence of Being as absent. When Being withdraws itself from us, it draws us in such a way that we bear the stamp of being drawn toward; thereby we ourselves become pointers, pointing towards Being. It is the withdrawing presence of Being that calls man to thinking and that which looks for thinking in man.27 Thus, calling Dasein to think, Being gives itself to be thought and wants itself to be thought. It draws man to thinking by withdrawing itself from him, thereby making him a pointer to itself.

In the "Postscript" to What Is Metaphysics? Heidegger speaks of the call of Being, which to a certain extent is comparable with the mode of Being’s gift of itself in its withdrawing. Here it is in the context of anxiety: Being calls Dasein to itself. Anxiety is an experience of Beinglessness (Seinlosigkeit).28 Being is the noiseless voice which makes itself heard in Dasein through the attunement of anxiety. In the attunement of anxiety Dasein may learn to experience Being in the form of non-Being.29 In other words, through anxiety Being lights up in man its own relation to Dasein’s essence. The noiseless voice of Being is a call and an appeal to Dasein to be the place where its truth can be preserved. Heidegger stresses that the call is not Dasein’s doing, but something that comes from the bounty of Being. Thus, the essential thinking is an occurrence of Being which comes from Being’s initiative.30 

Though essentially primordial thinking comes about from the initiative of Being, yet Dasein is not a mere passive agent in the process of responding. Dasein needs to concentrate upon the call of Being. It involves a certain activity in the process of essential thinking.31 Dasein, thus, responds to the voice of Being by a response that is ‘corresponding’(entsprehend) to the call. The term ‘ correspondence’ (Entsprehung), which in normal usage meaning ‘response’, ‘answer’ or ‘reply’, Heidegger uses in the sense of ‘conformity’ or ‘agreement’.32 So, to correspond to the call of Being is to attune oneself to the call of Being, to ‘echo’ the voice of Being and to be obedient to the voice of Being.33 As Dasein is called to think, the primordial corresponding consists in giving oneself to genuine thinking.34 The call to thinking, and the corresponding response on the part of Being and Dasein respectively, involves a twofold relationship between Being and Dasein: Being ‘calls’ and ‘gives’; Dasein ‘re-calls’(re-collects) and ‘thanks’. In other words, Being ‘calls’ Dasein to think and ‘gives’ itself as food for thought and Dasein responds by ‘re-collecting’ in memory the call of Being and ‘thanking’ Being for its gift of itself. This relationship can be substantiated by the etymological relatedness of the word ‘Denken’ (to think) to ‘Gedaechtnis’ (memory) and ‘Danken’ (to thank). The root word ‘Gedanc’, a middle German word contains the nuances of thinking, memory and thanking.35 We could now spell out re-collection and thanksgiving as Dasein’s response to the call and giving of Being respectively.

Dasein responds to the call of Being by re-calling (Ge-denken) the gift of Being. The root term ‘Gedanc’, from which ‘Gedaechtnis’ derives, means the ‘gathering that recalls’.36 Thus, ‘Gedaechtnis’ consists in the ‘gathering-together’ of the gift of Being thoughtfully and holding it in memory. In other words, the gathering-together is a re-collection (An-denken) in memory.37 The re-collection consists in Dasein thinking on the source, viz., Being, which is most thought-provoking,38 and which called Dasein in the first place to think. By thinking as the gift of Being, Dasein gathers-together in memory the thought of Being and lets it rest in the center of his being, viz., the heart (Herz).39 In doing so, Dasein ‘keeps’ (verwahrt) and preserves (bewahrat) Being — that which is most thought worthy — from oblivion, i.e., from being forgotten.40 In the process of re-collection, Being becomes present to, and real to, Dasein, and the differences of ‘here’, ‘there’, ‘now’ and ‘then’ disappear.41 Thus, by re-collection Dasein responds to Being by offering the center of his being, viz., the heart, as the lighting-up place for Being. Besides, re-collection, by opening up the world of Being to Dasein and constantly keeping the gift of the call to thinking in memory, raises in Dasein a sense of gratitude and thanksgiving.

The German root word ‘Gedanc’ not only means memory or re-collection, but also ‘thanks’. Memory and thanksgiving go together and belong together. Thanksgiving emerges in Dasein, when it gathers into his heart the call and giving of Being in re-collective memory. In other words, only in re-collective gathering, i.e. memory, is Being, which calls Dasein and gives itself to be thought, thanked. Memory, as the re-collection of Being is a thanking of Being: for Heidegger, every memorial service is a thanksgiving service.42 

Having shown the relationship between recollection and thanksgiving, we could analyze what thanking is and how Dasein responds to Being by thanking. Being’s supreme gift to the thinker (Dasein) is the very Being by which he is a thinker. By calling to thinking and giving itself as food for thinking, Being makes Dasein the thinker of Being. The best way to respond to this giving of Being is accepting the gift, which would mean that Dasein assumes the call and yields to it. Acceptance is the most original form of thanksgiving.The acceptance of the gift of Dasein’s nature, as the thinker of Being, involves giving of oneself to thinking. Thinking is thanksgiving. In thanking Being, Dasein thinks of Being; and in the thinking of Being Dasein accepts the gift of existence as the thinker of Being. Thus, for Heidegger, pure thanks lies in that we give ourselves to the thinking of Being.43 From this it follows that our supreme thanksgiving to Being is thinking and our profound thanklessness is thoughtlessness of Being. 44 William J. Richardson summarizes thanking as thanksgiving, and what it involves on the part of Dasein as he reaches towards Being as the thinker of Being as follows:

Thinking as thanksgiving [involves Dasein’s ] complete acquiescence to Being. This is accomplished when There-Being [Dasein] plays a role of attentive attent-ant of Being in profound and docile re-collection. . . . There-Being [Dasein] must turn to Being, opening itself [himself] up, com-mitting itself [himself], abandoning itself [himself] to its [his] exigencies. . . . It is the responding that is decisive . . . [for] thought . . . becomes authentically functional only in the movement of response.45 

Now that we have discussed the nature of essential thinking, we could highlight some of its characteristics. It is the experiencing of Being (Erfahrung des Seins). Of all entities, only Dasein can experience the ‘what-it-is’ of Being, when addressed by the voice of Being.46 Essential thinking is consent or readiness (die Bereitschaft) for anxiety. When Being, as Non-Being, makes its appeal to Dasein through the medium of anxiety, Dasein’s response to the call of Being is one of readiness for anxiety. In saying ‘yes’ to the call of Being, Dasein is ready to tread the untrodden region of Being.47 It is self-diffusion: Dasein ‘pours-himself-out’ to the positive lighting of Being. In so doing he becomes a lighting place for Being and its truth as it becomes manifest in things.48 Thinking is self-surrender by which Dasein gives his entire essence to Being’s wanting to have a place of disclosure.49 It is self-assumption. It consists in Dasein being entrusted with the task of assuming the charge of watching over Being. This is accomplished by Dasein’s relationship to Being, which Being itself establishes.50 Essential thinking is an echoing of Being. The response of Dasein to the silent voice of Being is one in which Dasein resounds it with such fidelity that Dasein’s thought is, indeed, an echo of the voice of Being. But, at the same time, it is Dasein’s own as it stems from Dasein’s freedom.51 

It is docility. It consists in being observant and heedful to the demands of the voice of Being.52 Thinking is an assistance to Being. By caring for the need for the place of disclosure in historical humanity, Dasein assists Being to be itself.53 

Thinking is an offering. It consists in Dasein’s self-diffusive surrender to Being. It involves the forgoing of attachment with the ontic order, the calculating thinking and being at home with the fundamental thought Being brings to pass. Besides, it implies that Dasein takes upon himself the noble poverty of Being, which deals with the supremely simple and the intangible. But to this poverty belongs genuine wealth. The paradox of wealth and poverty is proper to the thought as offering.54 Essential thinking is involvement. In spite of his great poverty of being detached from the ontic level of Dasein, yet he maintains continued involvement with entities. It is by thinking that the truth of Being is preserved in beings.55 Thinking is freedom. Dasein’s self-surrender of himself to Being, though done at the ‘wanting of Being’ (es braucht), is done with complete freedom on the part of Dasein. Dasein lets Being be in and through himself. Such a ‘letting-be’ is freedom. Thus, thinking of Being belongs not only to Being, but also to Dasein.56 

It is thanksgiving. The free surrender of Dasein to Being in thinking is not a mere response to Being’s appeal, but a thanksgiving for the bounty of Being’s gift.57 Thinking is a historical process. The essence of man on whom Being bestows its gift is ‘historical’.58 Essential thinking is an interrogation. It is a step-by-step advance towards the answer, which, in turn, leads to further questions, thereby probing deeper into the origins of reality.59 

All the characteristics we have listed here do not say anything more than what we have already said about essential thinking as a process of Being’s coming towards Dasein and Dasein’s moving towards Being in response. This process is a temporal-historical one and it is achieved by Dasein being a lighting-up-place for Being, both in Dasein and in beings.60 

Heidegger refers to the state of Dasein which results from essential thinking as dwelling (Wohnen) and describes it in various ways. He calls it as an indwelling (Instaendigkeit)61 and as a standing in the openness of Being.62 It is the opening of Dasein for openness63 and the abiding of Dasein in his ‘origins’ (Herkunft).64 Thus, dwelling is Dasein’s ‘ek-sisting’, i.e., standing in the openness of Being. Besides dwelling is a state in which Dasein is involved with things in an authentic way. In other words, Dasein builds (bauen)65 and spares (schonen)66 things in their authentic being. So, in describing the nature of dwelling in this section, we will consider it as Dasein’s ek-sisting and building.

Traditionally man was considered as a rational animal. According to Heidegger, the definition of man as ‘rational animal’ is a metaphysical interpretation of the original Greek description of man "zoion logon echon".67 This metaphysical statement about the nature of man considers him as a type of animal with the special quality of rationality. Thus, here man is viewed in terms of animality rather than of humanity.68 This type of thinking about man led to viewing man as a rational animal, a human entity, and a spiritual-bodily entity. In other words, man is considered as an entity among other entities, which has some power of control and manipulation over other beings. Though this way of looking at man is not wrong, it has failed to provide the dignity, says Heidegger, that man possesses.69 

Since man was thought of only in relation to animalitas and not in relation to his true nature, i.e., his humanitas, the real nature of man has not been thought of for a long time in the history of Western metaphysics. In consequence, man’s true essence is concealed from his own vision. As man did not think of his nature as it is in itself, the homeliness of his own essence is barred from his sight. This, in turn, has led to man’s being away from his home. In other words, not knowing his own nature, man could never be at-home-with-himself.70 The metaphysical way of defining man fails to see man and his essence in the light of man’s relationship to Being; instead man is seen as related to entities and in the process Being (Sein) is mistaken for beings (Seienden).71 Heidegger’s understanding of Dasein attempts to undo the flaw in understanding the nature of man brought about by metaphysical thinking, by considering man’s humanity and its relationship to Being.72 To Heidegger’s understanding of man, now, we could turn our attention.

According to Heidegger, Dasein is ek-sistence (Ek-sistenz) and ek-sisting is the way that is proper to Dasein.73 It consists in Dasein’s being attuned (ge-stimmt) to the voice (Stimme) of Being, which gives itself to Dasein in silence and to which Dasein is called to listen (hoeren), even under the loudest noise.74 In other words, Dasein’s ek-sisting consists in Dasein being attuned to listen to the call of Being and enabled to respond to the call by his openness to the light of Being. Thus, as ek-sistence, Dasein stands out in the openness of Being. The term ‘Dasein’, only in the sense of ek-sistence, stands for the reality of the involvement (Bezug) of Being in human nature and the fundamental relationship of man to the openness of Being.75 From this it is clear that ek-sisting is Dasein’s essence, because only as ek-sisting can man ‘stand in’ (innestehen) or dwell (wohnen) in the sphere of Being, as man.76 The character of ‘standing in’ or ‘ek-sisting’, viz., the ‘there’ (das Da) sets Dasein the lighting of Being (Lichtung des Seins).77 Thus, the true nature of man’s essence is unfolded only when Dasein is seen in the light of Being, viz., as ek-sistence.

In the process of Dasein’s ek-sisting or dwelling in the light of Being, Heidegger gives primacy to Being and subordinates the role of man to that of Being. If it were not for Being’s initial openness to Dasein, he cannot be the lighting of Being. In other words, in the ek-sisting or dwelling of Dasein in the light of Being, the role of Being is primary.78 This becomes clear also when we consider the structure of Dasein as ek-sistence. Heidegger’s analysis of the structure of Dasein as ek-sistence follows more or less the pattern in which it is considered in Sein und Zeit. The ek-sistence is spoken of as a projection that is essentially thrown and fallen and which is constituted of care. Heidegger speaks of this thrown projection as a ‘fateful sending’ that is brought about by Being.79 Heidegger remarks:

. . . the projection is essentially thrown projection. What throws in projection is not man but Being itself, which sends man into the ek-sistence of Dasein that is his essence. This destiny comes to pass as the lighting of Being as which it is. The lighting grants nearness to Being. In this nearness, in the lighting of the Da, man dwells as the ek-sisting one without yet being able to properly experience and take over this dwelling.80 

 

Again, Heidegger indicates that Dasein, as ek-sistence, is constituted of care by the throw of Being when he says: "Being itself, which as the throw has projected the essence of man into `care’, is as this openness of Being".81 These two quotes from Heidegger clearly indicate the role of Being in Dasein’s dwelling as primary.

But in the process of dwelling in the nearness of Being, though thrown into his destiny by Being, man does play a role. By his dwelling he guards and preserves Being and its truth.82 Dasein lets himself open to Being and allows Being to shine forth, thereby becoming a lighting-up-place in which Being dwells and its truth is preserved. It involves, on the part of Dasein, a corresponding openness to the destiny to which the throw of Being leads him. To put it in Heidegger’s words: ". . . for man it is ever a question of finding what is fitting in his essence which corresponds to such destiny; for in accord with this destiny man as ek-sisting has to guard the truth of Being".83 

From what we have said, Heidegger’s claim becomes clear. For him, man’s essence does not lie in his relationship with entities, i.e., man as the subject and entities as objects which he looks over and manipulates. But, rather, the essence of man must be understood in terms of dwelling in the nearness of Being. It involves Dasein’s openness or standing out in the lighting of Being, thereby becoming the lighting-up-place of Being. Man is man, and he is his essential nature only because he ek-sists, i.e., stands out into the openness of Being. Only by dwelling in the light of Being does the ‘ek’ of ek-sistence essentially unfold.84 To quote Heidegger:

Man is never first and foremost man on either side of the world, as a ‘subject’, whether this is taken as ‘I’ or ‘we’. Nor is he simply a mere subject which always simultaneously is related to object, so that his essence lies in the subject-object relation. Rather, before all this, man in his essence is ek-sistant, into the openness of Being, into the open region that lights the ‘between’ within which a ‘relation’ of subject to object can ‘be’.84a

 

According to Heidegger the German terms for dwelling (Wohnen) and building (Bauen) are intimately related to each other. Although not all buildings are dwelling places, yet one attains dwelling by means of a building. In other words, building is a means to the goal of dwelling. Heidegger, while not denying the means-end relationship between building and dwelling, says that the means-end schema does not help us to see the essential relatedness of building and dwelling, as it considers building and dwelling as two separate activities.super85 Heidegger speaks of an essential relation between building and dwelling, as the former is identical with the latter. This is clear when he says: ". . . building is not merely a means and a way towards dwelling; to build is already it itself to dwell".86 In order to understand this relationship between building and dwelling, just as does Heidegger, we must etymologically analyze these two terms and their implications.

There are two senses in which the term ‘Bauen’ (building) is used, and in both of these senses it is related to ‘Wohnen’ (dwelling). The first or the broad sense of the term ‘Bauen’ refers to the way in which Dasein is on this earth,87 while the second or the strict sense signifies the manner in which Dasein comports himself in the structure of the dwelling process in relation to the things it cares for.88 

Taken in the broad sense, ‘Bauen’ is an equivalent of the term ‘Wohnen’, for according to Heidegger, ‘Bauen’ derives from an old High German word ‘buan’, which means to remain or to stay in a place, i.e., to dwell. The original meaning of the verb ‘bauen’ is lost in the German usage, even though a trace of it is left in the German term ‘Nachbar’. The ‘Nachbar’, the ‘Nachgebur’ or the ‘Nachgebauer’ means the ‘near-dweller’ or the ‘near-by-dweller’, i.e. the neighbor. Again, the verbs related to ‘bauen’, such as, ‘bueren’, ‘beuren’ and ‘beuron’ — all mean to dwell in a place. The root words of ‘bauen’ — ‘buan’, ‘bhu’ and ‘beo’ — bear an affinity to the German forms of the verb ‘to be’ (sein), viz. ‘ich bin’, and ‘du bist’ (‘I am’ and ‘you are’). Thus, ‘bauen’ taken in the broad sense suggests the way in which Dasein is on the earth, viz. his dwelling. In this sense to dwell or to build means to be a human being and to be a mortal on the earth.89 

‘Bauen’, considered, in the strict sense, i.e., in relation to that which is built, means to cherish, to protect, to preserve and to care for.90 In other words, it means to tend or to spare (schonen). In this sense also ‘bauen’ is related to ‘wohnen’. The term ‘wohnen’ is derived from the old Saxon term ‘wuon’ and the Gothic term ‘wunian’. The term ‘wuon’ means to remain in a place, like the old use of the term ‘bauen’. The term ‘wunian’ means the way in which this ‘remaining in a place’ is experienced, i.e., to remain in a place in peace, or to be brought to peace. The German term for peace ‘Friede’ has the nuance of ‘being preserved from harm and danger’, ‘to treat with consideration’, ‘taking care of’ and ‘safeguarding’.91 In other words, the term ‘wohnen’ (to dwell) means "to be set at peace . . . to remain at peace . . . [and] the free sphere that safeguards each thing in its essence",92 i.e., to tend or to spare. To quote Heidegger: "The fundamental character of dwelling is this sparing (or tending)".93 Thus, it is clear that ‘bauen’ in the strict sense also means ‘wohnen’. In this sense, to dwell or to build means to let things be in their essence, by sparing them within the light of Being.

It is to the second sense of ‘bauen’ that Heidegger refers when he talks about building things by sparing (tending) them. Building, in the sense of sparing or dwelling, involves the notion of accomplishing something by toil or doing something by work — as for example tilling the soil or cultivating the vine.94 Heidegger mentions two modes of building, viz. building as cultivating (colere) as the farmer does the cultivating in the fields, and building in the sense of raising edifices (aedificare) as the construction-worker constructs a temple.95 In both of these cases man builds (bauen) or accomplishes something: if cultivating, it is the farm that he cultivates; and if constructing, it is the temple he constructs. In both of these cases, one must address oneself to two questions: the first is about the nature of the ‘thing’ (Ding) built and the second is about the nature of building or accomplishing (Bauen). Heidegger, limiting himself to the second mode of building, viz., building in the sense of constructing and taking a ‘bridge’ as an example for the thing,96 addresses himself to these questions.

Raising the question of the nature of the ‘thing’, Heidegger speaks of it in a way that is different from the traditional understanding. For him, the thing is not "the Roman ‘res’, the late Greek ‘on’, the medieval Latin ‘res’ or the modern Gegenstand (object)".97 A thing, fundamentally, is not something that is; but rather it is something that ‘things’ (dingt). The old High German word ‘Ding’ (thing) means ‘gathering’ (Versammlung). In ‘thinging’ the thing gathers the fourfold (Geviert) — the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals — into a thing. In this thinging of the thing, i.e., in the gathering of the fourfold in the thing Being presences itself in the thing and the thing ‘is’ in its being.98 Each thing gathers into itself the fourfold in its unique way. Let us take the example of the bridge. The bridge gathers the earth as the landscape around the stream. It gathers the sky by being ready for the sky’s weather and its changing nature. The bridge gathers before the divinities and visibly gives thanks for their presence, even though their presence is obstructed or wholly pushed aside by our thoughtlessness. It gathers the mortals, as mortals, by granting them their way, that they may come and go from one shore to another. In this manner, the bridge, as a thing, gathers to itself the fourfold — the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals — in its unique way.99 

The gathering of the fourfold is localized into a place (Ort). But the place did not exist as a place prior to the bridge, even though there were many sites (Staette) by the river bank where it could arise. In other words, a place comes about only because of the bridge as a thing.100 Space is something that has been made room for by place. It is a certain free area within a boundary in which the thing begins to come-to-presence. Therefore, the essence of the space depends on place,101 and it comes about as a result of the thinging of the thing. In other words, place and space are understood only in relation to the thinging of the thing, viz. in the gathering of the fourfold into the thing.

. . . the essence of the erecting of buildings cannot be understood adequately in terms either of architecture or of engineering construction, nor in terms of a mere combination of the two. The erecting of buildings would not suitably be defined even if we were to think of it in the sense of the original Greek ‘techne’ as solely a letting-appear, which brings something made, as something present, among the things that are already present.102 

 

On the contrary, erecting buildings, according to Heidegger, is a process of bringing forth (herbringen) or letting-dwell Being in the limits of the thing and, in turn, letting the thing itself presence (hervorbringen) what it is in itself. Thus, for Heidegger, "the essence of building is letting dwell"103 by which Dasein brings forth things as things and lets things be things.

It is by the process of letting things be things that Dasein builds or spares Being in beings. The building is a dwelling in the sense that Dasein lets Being dwell in things. Commenting on this point William J. Richardson says that sparing (tending) Being in beings, and building beings by bringing them forth as they are in themselves are one and the same. In fact, in sparing Being in beings, Dasein brings forth things as things.104 Dasein can build things in this way, because of the bi-dimensional character of his dwelling. William J. Richardson notes:

it [Dasein] can let things shine forth in their own ‘place’, occupying their own ‘space’, because from the very beginning its [his] open-ness to Being is an open-ness to all ‘space’, . . . its [his] ontological dimension, is a constitutional near-ness to things. But only when this ontological dimension is articulated on the ontic level in things among which There-Being [Dasein] sojourns does There-Being [Dasein] find itself [himself] genuinely ‘at home’ in its [his] nearness to things.105 

 

But the bi-dimensional character of Dasein does not bring about the building and sparing things. There is a need on the part of Dasein to dwell in the openness of Being as ek-sisting so that he can effectively build things as things. For ". . . building is really dwelling".106 To quote Heidegger: " We do not dwell because we have built, but we build and have built because we dwell, that is, we are dwellers".107 Again he says: "Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build".108 Heidegger concludes that "Dasein must ever learn to dwell"109 by being open and docile to the voice of Being.

Essential thinking of Being and dwelling in the neighborhood of Being takes Dasein to the third stage of the way to the goal, viz., seeing the truth of Being. The truth of Being consists in Dasein recognizing his relationship of belonging-together to Being, the relation of difference that exists between Being and entities and history as the time-space-play of Being. When the truth of Being dawns on Dasein, he becomes a shepherd who guards Being as it is manifested in relation to himself, the entities and history. Speaking about Dasein as the seer and the shepherd of Being, Heidegger says: "Man is not a lord of beings (Seienden). Man is the shepherd of Being (Sein). Man loses nothing `less’, rather he gains in that he attains the truth of Being. He gains the central poverty of the shepherd, whose dignity consists in being called by Being itself into the preservation of Being’s truth".110 

Man, thus, is the shepherd of Being and its truth. In other words, he is called by Being to be its guardian and preserver. The manner in which he needs to exercise the guardianship is not one of lording over, but is one of waiting on and attending to Being. Only when Dasein Dwells in the neighborhood of Being, can he become a shepherd, because as a shepherd Dasein is an attendant who waits on the presencing of Being. A shepherd is not a stranger; but he knows the neighborhood, as he had been dwelling in the nearest of the near.111 Only by dwelling there does Dasein become a shepherd.

Such a shepherd is a seer of the truth of Being. The German word ‘wissen’ (to see) and its Latin equivalent ‘videre’, signify ‘seeing’ in the sense of attaining wisdom, rather than mere intellectual seeing. A seer is one who has already seen the presencing of Being112 as revealing and concealing.113 The seeing is determined not by the eye, but by the lighting of Being that has been given to him already.114 The shepherd, in shepherding the truth of Being, stands in the light of Being’s presence and thereby sees the truth of Being. Therefore, the shepherd of Being is the seer of Being. The shepherd, in shepherding Being, sees its truth. In other words, the seer is "a shepherd who attends on, and watches over . . . sees the revealing-concealing play of Being"115 in history. The whole process of seeing the truth of Being belongs to the realm of Ereignis, in which Dasein and Being own each other. In this mutual owning of Dasein and Being, Dasein bestows the highest dignity of being on the shepherd and the seer of Being.

Now that we have analyzed the three stages of the way, we may highlight the attainment of the goal, i.e., the experience of Being. Essential thinking is attained in release (Gelassenheit).116 Dwelling occurs in Dasein in relation to his homecoming to the source and sparing (tending) the fourfold in things. Seeing the truth of Being becomes a reality for Dasein when he opens himself to the un-concealment of Being and to language, the house of Being. In attaining the goal, at every stage, there is a genuine interaction between Being and Dasein: Being’s gift of itself to Dasein and Dasein’s corresponding response in receiving Being’s gift. In this section, we attempt to bring to light the twofold movement on the part of Being and Dasein, in attaining the goal.

According to Heidegger, essential thinking occurs in relation to release (Gelassenheit). Heidegger refers to the term ‘Gelassenheit’ as an ‘old word’.117 By this he points to the affinity of the word to the German mystical tradition, especial to the thought of Meister Eckhart.118 Heidegger himself, as with the case of thinking, does not attempt to write a treatise about Gelassenheit; he rather was interested in its occurrence.

Regarding the nature of release, we have a clear statement of Heidegger. In the context of Dasein’s attitude towards technology, he says that the term ‘Gelassenheit’ expresses a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ at the same time.119 In other words, it is an attitude of accepting technology in one’s everyday life, but at the same time not being mastered by it. We could say that it is a state of consciousness in which Dasein is involved with things, yet not entangled with them. For Heidegger, the state of release is primordially brought about by Being. But Dasein also has to play his part. Thus, release is a task to be accomplished both by Being and Dasein. In the following pages, we will attempt to analyze the attainment of essential thinking in release by the co-operation of Being and Dasein.

In dealing with release in his book Discourse on Thinking, Heidegger uses a new term to refer to Being (Sein). He calls Being ‘Gegnet’, which is rendered in English as ‘that-which-regions’.120 Heidegger says that Gegnet is the primordial openness which ‘gathers’ (versammelt)121 and is characterized by expanse (weite) and abiding (weile) that point to the spatio-temporal character of the Gegnet.122 Heidegger calls it ‘region-of-all-regions’.123 Thus, Gegnet is nothing other than Being in its spatio-temporal character.

There are two ways in which the regioning of ‘that-which-regions’ (das Gegen der Gegnet) manifests itself in relation to Dasein and things. Firstly, the regioning of ‘that-which-regions’ relating to Dasein is Vergegnis (regioning). It is a primordial regioning, by which ‘that-which-regions’ lets Dasein be open to it in the sense of Dasein being appropriated to it.124 In other words, Vergegnis is that letting by Being which helps Dasein to rise above the pulls and pushes of everyday existence and to turn towards ‘that-which-regions’, resulting in a freedom in Dasein to be himself. Secondly, Heidegger speaks of a second type of letting of ‘that-which-regions’ in relation to things. This type of regioning is called Bedingnis (bethinging). It consists in letting things be things. Things are things only when they are laid to rest in the abiding expanse of ‘that-which-regions’. A thing is a thing only insofar as it is ‘bethinged’ by ‘that-which-regions’.125 These two types of regioning by ‘that-which-regions’ (Being), in relation to Dasein and things should not be understood in the causal sense or in the transcendental-horizonal sense. Therefore, it is neither an ontic nor an ontological relationship. It is a relationship that belongs to the realm of Being as ‘that-which-regions’.126 Thus, ‘that-which-regions’ by Vergegnis lets Dasein be open to the region of ‘that-which-regions’ and by Bedingnis lets things be things. In doing so Being initiates the process of release, in which the activity of Being is primary.

Release is the task not only of Being, but also of Dasein. Though, ‘that-which-regions’ lets Dasein be open to itself, release cannot come about until Dasein is released towards ‘that-which-regions’.127 Dasein must ‘turn from’ will, which for Heidegger is the basis of all representative-calculative thinking, and must ‘turn to’ Being by waiting on it. In the following section, we would elaborate Dasein’s twofold tasks of ‘turning from’ and ‘turning to’.

The first step towards the attainment of release is a turning from willing. As representational-calculative thinking is a kind of willing, such a thinking cannot be stopped by will, as willing strengthens willing. Release cannot come about unless Dasein is ready to give up willing. In other words, while Dasein is able to wean itself from willing, it can move towards release.128 Therefore, the ‘turning from’ willing amounts to non-willing (nicht wollen) and consists in willingly renouncing willing.129 Renouncing willing involves a trace of willing, as we have to will not to will. Heidegger says that such traces of willing in willing non-willing, disappear and dissipate in release.130 To say that release is beyond willing would amount to the passivity of Dasein in the state of release, which is not true, as the distinction of willing and non-willing, activity and passivity, all belong to the domain of the will. Since release is a state that is beyond the realm of the will, all such distinctions do not apply to release.131 The so-called ‘not-doing’ associated with the released individual, says Heidegger, is not a cowardly allowing of things to drift along,132 but a power of action and resolve.133 Non-willing is the first step, though a negative one, that Dasein must take in order to free himself from his entanglement with and domination by things. Once Dasein is turned away from willing, he can begin to wait on Being.

Dasein’s positive response to the regioning (Vergegnis) of ‘that-which-regions’ is waiting (Warten). It is an attitude of Dasein, which consists in taking a deliberate stand of attentiveness to Being. Such a waiting lets Being present itself as itself. It is doing nothing but waiting.134 We always await something, while in waiting there is no real object. So "in waiting we leave open what we are waiting for".135 In waiting, we release ourselves into the openness, because we leave open what we wait for. Waiting moves into the openness without any representation. So to wait is to be on the way (unterwegs) towards openness, i.e., Being.136 

Waiting, on the part of man, involves a twofold movement: one towards things and the other towards Being. Firstly, the movement of waiting towards things, is called ‘release towards things’ (die Gelassenheit zu den Dingen). It is an attitude of Dasein that is ambivalent. It is saying ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same thing at the same time: ‘yes’ because we need the thing, as it has a reference to our life; ‘no’ because we do not want the thing to dominate us and take our life wherever it wants. If we are released towards things, in this manner, says Heidegger, our relationship to things becomes "wonderfully simple and relaxed’.137 Secondly, the movement of waiting towards Being is ‘openness to the mystery’ (die Offenheit fuer Geheimnis). When we deal with things, or when we are affected by them either by fascination or dislike, the meaning of these happenings tends to be hidden. We tend to be taken over by external dimensions of reality while being totally blind to the mystery-dimension or the inner aspect of reality. To quote Heidegger: ". . . we stand at once within the realm of that which hides itself from us, and hides itself just in approaching us."138 According to Heidegger, everything in the world has this mystery dimension which hides itself. He cites the example of technology. In waiting, we turn towards the dimension of mystery in things. The more we, in waiting, open ourselves to the mystery-dimension of reality, to that extent release occurs in us139 and we become thinkers of Being. For Heidegger, release towards things and openness to mystery belong together. They help us to live in the world in a different way by giving us new ground to stand on and a new vision that would guide our lives.140 

Dwelling is attained in Dasein, both, in relation to Being and beings. When Dasein opens himself to the poetic presencing of Being by poetic dwelling, he dwells in the neighborhood of Being. It involves a homecoming (Heimkommen) or a return (Rueckehr) to the source (Ursprung)141 at the summoning of Being, and a preservation of this original homecoming by re-collective (poetic) dwelling in the three ecstases of time. Dasein dwells among things when he lets beings be in their being. This is done by Dasein’s sparing (tending) the fourfold, viz., the three ‘facets’ of Being in things, thereby letting things be things. Here, we will consider the attainment of dwelling in relation to the homecoming and to the fourfold.

In many of his writings, Heidegger, speaks of the ‘homelessness’ (Heimlosigkeit) of man. It is not a ‘housing-shortage’ (Wohnungsnot) or a lack of houses to dwell. ‘Homelessness’ consists in being ‘strangers’ in one’s own homeland (Heimat), and being a neighbor (Nachbar) to the world dominated by technology. It is loss of man’s rootedness (Bodenstaendigkeit)142 in Being. Besides, ‘homelessness’ is an abandonment of Being and a symptom of the forgetfulness of Being,143 which, in fact, is a being away from the homeland. Dasein’s homeland, for Heidegger, is nearness to Being.144 So Dasein’s homecoming is dwelling in its homeland, i.e. nearness to Being. Dasein is summoned to the homeland by a primordial poetic presencing to which Dasein responds by poetic dwelling. This is our concern in this section.

It is Being which summons Dasein to his homeland. The summoning takes the form of Being manifesting itself to Dasein in its characteristics. Firstly, Being is Glad-some (das Heitere), which suggests the nuances of brightness of light, serenity and gentle joy.145 The Glad-some is the source of joy and so it is the most Joyous one (das Freudigste). The Glad-some, by sending rays of joy, enlightens the homeland and makes it a welcome place for the homecoming Dasein. This, in turn, lights up the disposition of the home-comer to experience all that is noble in the homeland.146 Secondly, Being presents itself as the Holy (das Heilig). By ‘the Holy’ Heidegger means neither God nor gods. ‘The Holy’ is the ultimate conserving power which guards beings in the integrity of their being. Being, as the Glad-some, is the Holy. The articulation of the Holy constitutes the primordial poem, which is seen as the ‘thoughts’ of Being-as-the-spirit.147 Thirdly, Being shows itself as the Origin (Ursprung). Heidegger says: ". . . what is most proper and most precious in the homeland consists simply in the fact that it is this nearness to the Origin — and nothing besides. . . ."148 Being, as the Origin, is best understood in the image of an overflowing and continuous source. It is Being, as source, that attracts the poet-wanderer to its nearness.149 Finally, Being shines forth itself as the Ground (Grund). Though Being is a continuous source and gives itself out, it retains itself as the source. In other words, while giving itself out, Being does not empty itself, but rather remains a steadfast and consistent source. It is in this sense of self-retaining and continuous source that Being presents itself as the Ground.150 

Thus, Being summons Dasein to its nearness by manifesting itself as the Glad-some, the most Joyous, the Holy, the Origin and the Ground. In Being’s manifestation of its qualities begins Dasein’s homecoming. Heidegger considers Dasein’s homecoming in terms of poetry, viz., in terms of bringing into poetry the primordial poetic presencing of Being. Being addresses and hails itself as the primordial poem, to which the poet (Dasein) must give expression in words. Dasein’s homeland is to be found in the very source that hails Dasein, viz., Being.151 There are three moments or stages in the poet’s homecoming.

The first moment depicts the poet’s early days and his experience of the source. The poet, as a youth, grows up in the realm of the source without ever fully appreciating it. As his poetic spirit is ‘open to the open’, he has some (pre-ontological) awareness of Being. But this awareness is often obscured as the source manifests itself in the finite beings. The more he aims at penetrating the mystery of the source that is manifested in beings, the more he gets lost in things and Being, as it were, evades him. Because of the withdrawing nature of the source he is not able to hold off the difference between Being and beings.152 In spite of this state of forgetfulness of Being, the poetic spirit (Being) keeps him oriented towards Being. The orientation towards the source brings in the poet an awakening to go abroad to seek that which brings him closer to the source. Here, Heidegger compares the German poet, who is the master of form (clarity of exposition) and can fully be forgetful of the spirit, viz., fire, which is the characteristic of the Greek poet. The German poet can have fire only if he has the courage to leave the homeland and make the journey abroad, so that in coming back after the journey, he can dwell genuinely ‘at home’ near the source.153 Such a journey abroad is an essential condition for the homecoming and becoming-at-home. Indeed, the journey from its first moment is a returning, as it is that which makes the poet experience what he really is, i.e., his poetic destiny.154 

The second moment is the actual taking of the journey abroad. To experience the source, the poet must move with the stream, move down to the sea and experience the richness of the source.155 To appreciate the native soil, as the homeland that is near to the source, the poet must make a voyage to the land of Greece,156 and be burned by the fire of Being.157 In the journey, the poet is constantly guided by Being. Every experience abroad reveals more and more of the home. Finally, ". . . the fire has let him experience that it itself must be brought back from abroad into the homeland in order that there this proper endowment, the facility for clear expression, can release its native powers in relation to the fire".158 It, in turn, will help him to produce a poetry of proper depth.

The third moment is the poet’s return to the homeland. It is the return to the homeland enriched by his experience abroad that brings the poet to maturity. It helps the poet to possess the homeland in a new and authentic way.159 For example, the poet’s voyage to Greece and being burned by the fire, which is characteristic of Greek poetry, helps him to understand the disciplined style and clarity of expression of the German poetry in a new way, and this, in turn, would make him a mature poet.160 Thus, the poet’s homecoming helps him to understand his homeland in a new way. It is a moving into the nearness161 and a following of the source.162 But, the passage into the source is not such that we can dissolve the mystery dimension of the source or Being. The poet can never get at this fully. So Being, as mystery, has to be faced in the reverential awe (Scheu).163 Being, as Joyous, is experienced by the poet with joy (Freude).164 Thus, the poet experiences Being by varying attunements. In the process he comes to the nearness of Being and finds that therein lies his homeland. Being-at-home in his homeland, i.e., by his dwelling in the neighborhood of Being, the poet is able to sing or give expression, in poetry, to the Being-dimension of beings. It is the genuine homecoming and dwelling.

According to Heidegger, the following and drawing near to the source involved in homecoming, is not something accomplished once and for all. It is Dasein’s original experience of homecoming which is brought about by the summoning of Being. It is Dasein’s original return to the source, i.e., Being. The process must continue as long as the poet remains a poet. It must be sustained and preserved by a continuous abiding in the nearness to the source, thereby making it a place of dwelling (Wohnen).165 To quote Heidegger: "The one condition of becoming-at-home in his proper domain, . . . the journey abroad has been fulfilled. But this fulfillment remains fulfillment only on the condition that what has been experienced . . . is preserved".166 

The past, viz., the original homecoming, which was Being’s poetic presencing, is that on which the poet must poetically dwell. The past, in question, is not a mere memory of what has happened once and is forgotten, but is such that it has an influence on the poet. Thus, the past, still is a ‘having been’ but as such it is real to the poet now as it was when he first experienced.167 The poetic dwelling on the past as ‘having been’ on the part of the poet is a greeting or hailing (Gruessen)168 of Being for its poetic presencing. It involves a certain docility and self-surrender on the part of the hailer (the poet) to the hailed (Being). In so doing, the hailer allows the hailed, by his openness to be hailed, to shine forth in a way that is proper to the hailed. The hailed accepts the hail of the hailer and, in turn, hails the hailer.169 Thus, in the reciprocal hailing of Being and the poet (Dasein), the original homecoming is re-lived and thereby preserved. Heidegger remarks on this point as follows: "The heavenly fire [Being] imposes itself on him [the poet] who hails it . . . as thought and abides near him as that which comes-to-presence in . . . what-is-past [the original experience of homecoming]".170 

The Holy or the Hailed is also the poet’s future, because by his poetic destiny the poet must bring forth in words the original poetic presencing of the Holy.171 The Holy comes to the poet as a primordial poem, before his poetizing. The poet must bring the primordial poem into words. Thus, for the poet to dwell poetically upon ‘what-is-past’, i.e., upon the primordial poetic presencing of Being (original homecoming), is to dwell upon ‘what-is-coming’ to him in the future, as by his poetic dwelling the poet experiences again and preserves the Holy as given in ‘what-is-past’. Dwelling upon ‘what-is-coming’ is conversely to dwell upon ‘what-is-past’. In other words, the poet dwells upon the Holy that is given in the past as ‘having been’ (the past) and as ‘that-which-is-coming’ (the future). Thus, in the Holy, the past and the future are unified.172 

When the Holy gives itself as the primordial poem and continues to come (future) to the poet who has been hailed by the Holy itself by its original poetic presencing (past), the task of the poet is to render present (present) the Holy in the words of his poetry. The poet does this, insofar as he poetically dwells by being at home near the source. The present dimension of the poetic dwelling consists fundamentally in that the poet learns to use his native propensity for poetry, viz. the ability for clear expression and organization of the poetry, with an authentic freedom of the spirit. In the initial stage of poetic presencing the poet, though close to the source, neither knew the source clearly nor was aware of his inner propensity for poetry. But the original homecoming liberates him and lets him know and dwell in the homeland, i.e., nearness to Being, besides letting him know his native ability for poetry in a new way. Thus, now, the poet, knowing the source and the homeland, dwells in it poetically and gives authentic expression to his experience of the source and the homeland, facilitated by his new awareness of his native ability for poetry. This happens only as a result of the poet’s experience of the original homecoming. To quote Heidegger: ". . . [The poet] exercises [his] native endowment, the clarity of expression, `freely’ only then, when what is clear in his utterance is permeated by the open experience of that which is exposed".173 

Thus, the original poetic presencing of Being, i.e., the original homecoming of the poet is preserved and sustained as an ever-present dwelling in the nearness of being by poetic-dwelling. It involves re-calling it as an experience of the hailing of Being in the past; a waiting on it as an experience in which the Holy (Being) continues to come to the poet in the future; and as an experiencing of the Holy in the here and now, to which the poet gives the fullest expression in the present in poetry by using his inner ability for poetic utterance in an authentic freedom of the spirit. From what we have said, it could be concluded that the original presencing of Being in the primordial poem is preserved and sustained in the poetry or in the poetic word of the poet. William J. Richardson speaks of the poetic word of the poet as ". . . a word of `hailing’ inasmuch as it greets what is past; at the same time, it is a `prophetic’ word, inasmuch as it articulates what is coming, both for the same reason, because it seeks to utter past and future in their original correlation, the holy as such. Such a word can be uttered only if the poet has learned to use his native talent with a freedom that is genuine".174 

Dasein’s dwelling among things consists in sparing and preserving the fourfold. "To preserve the fourfold, to save the earth, to receive the sky, to wait on divinities and to initiate mortals — this fourfold preserving is the simple essence of dwelling".175 `To spare’ or `to preserve’ means to take something under one’s care or to look after something. To preserve the fourfold, thus, means to keep it under the watchful care of Dasein. The sparing (tending) of the fourfold by Dasein involves a mode of Dasein’s relating to things, by and in which Dasein spares the fourfold in things. In other words, Dasein, by his relation to things, lets things gather the fourfold in themselves. It, in turn, would mean that Dasein lets the earth, the sky, the divinities and mortals bring the structure of the world in which things can be what they are in their being176 into the primordial unity of the fourfold. Dasein, as the dweller and the builder, plays the key role in sparing (tending and preserving) things by bringing about the unity of the fourfold in things. Man is the `Da’ of `Sein’ and he dwells in the fourfold by gathering the fourfold in things. To quote Heidegger: "Mortals are in the fourfold by dwelling".177 So the dwelling of Dasein, as mortal, in the fourfold is the sparing and building of things.

Firstly, mortals dwell in that they save (retten) the earth. The term ‘saving’ is not to be taken in the sense of preventing something from danger or destruction. So saving the earth means much more than to exploit or to wear out the earth by the manipulative nature of science and technology. By saving the earth, the mortals not only prevent mastering and subjugating the earth, but also set the earth free that it can be in its true nature. Concretely this means to leave it in its essence, guard it by sustaining it in its elements, and thus allow the emerging of vegetation and animal life. In other words, saving the earth consists in using the earth in the proper way, instead of exploiting and destroying it.178 

Secondly, mortals dwell insofar as they receive or accept (empfangen) the sky as the sky. It means that "they leave to the sun and to the moon their journey, to the stars their course, to the seasons their blessings and their inclemency; they do not turn night into day and day into a harassed unrest.179 Concretely it would imply that the mortals must respect the unnamed and guard the unknown. It is not attempting to solve the secrets of Being by raising up metaphysical systems and rational thinking, but to respect the mystery of Being. When no help is offered in knowing these mysteries, the dweller is patient and when lights are offered he guards its rays from everyday idle-talk.180 In other words, it involves a `letting-things-be-as-they-are’ and letting them reveal their essential being.

Thirdly, mortals dwell in that they wait on (erwarten) the divinities as divinities. In hope they look up to the divinities to receive what they hoped for. It involves that Dasein be attentive and alert to receive signs of the intimations regarding the appearing of the divinities and not miss the signs of their absence. Besides, they are also asked not to make their own gods and are warned against worshipping the idols. Concretely, it means that the mortals should not mistake a being (Seiende) for Being (Sein). The idols of calculative thinking must be left behind. In case the Holy has withdrawn, they must wait for the arrival of the "weal that has been withdrawn". 181 

Fourthly, mortals dwell in that they initiate their own essential nature, viz., their being capable of facing death as death. While saving the earth, receiving the sky, waiting on divinities, Dasein must dwell in the perspective of his own mortal nature. Death, according to Heidegger, is not an empty something which is our life’s goal, nor is it only an end-point of one’s life; death is a continuous process in the life of Dasein. Therefore, dying a good death is the same as living a new life. In fact, an authentic realization of his mortality can help Dasein to dwell genuinely in the fourfold in its unity, thereby to spare and to build things.182 

Dasein, thus dwelling on the earth (auf der Erde), saves the earth as the earth; by dwelling under the sky (unter dem Himmel) receives the sky as the sky; by dwelling before the divinities (vor den Goettlichen) waits on the divinities as divinities; and finally by taking upon himself his own essence of mortality, by accepting death as death, preserves the fourfold, and thereby dwells among things. In so doing, Dasein builds things in their essential being or spares (tending) Being in beings. "Dwelling, inasmuch as it keeps the fourfold in things, is, as this keeping, a building"183 Dasein, by his fourfold sparing of the things, by dwelling in the fourfold, lets things be things in relation to the four facets of Being, viz., the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. In this letting-be of things, Dasein does not attempt to manipulate, master or compel things, but instead builds things in their essential nature, i.e., in relation to the fourfold. It is not an indifference or lack of interest in things, but rather a letting-be, which allows things to manifest Being (Sein) in their essence.184 

Dasein’s seeing the truth of Being, in the sense of ‘realizing’ or ‘experiencing’, cannot be attained as long as one does not move away from the attitude of representational thinking, in which man sees himself as rational animal. This seeing involves a leap (Sprung) from the level of logic dominated by thinking to the realm of Ereignis in which man and Being are naturally appropriated to each other in their essential nature. Speaking of the nature of the leap, Heidegger says that it is an abrupt leap, as entry into the realm of Ereignis is an ‘unabridged entry’, and entry that can come about only if we let go the logic-dominated thinking. Only such a leap into the realm of mutual appropriation of Being and man can let Dasein see the truth of Being.185 The entry into the realm of Ereignis — thereby seeing the truth of Being — can come about when Dasein as the seer looks into the process of Being’s un-concealment (aletheia) and by his dwelling in language which is the house of Being. In this section, we will see how the seeing is accomplished in Dasein by his openness to aletheia and language.186 

The Greek term ‘aletheia’187 means ‘un-concealment’ (Un-verborgenheit). It communicates the notion of being unhidden or revealed. It is literally the ‘a’ of ‘lethe’. The Greek ‘a’ and the corresponding German ‘un’ are taken in the privative sense,188 i.e., in the sense of undoing the concealing that is there. There is a gradual change in Heidegger’s understanding of the term ‘aletheia’. Heidegger did not use the term to mean ‘truth’ (Wahrheit), not did he continue to consider truth as aletheia; he studies aletheia as aletheia.189 Aletheia is rendered in four different senses. The first two correspond to the concealing and revealing aspects of aletheia, based on the emphasis given either to the ‘a’ or to the ‘lethe’. The former points to the revealing while the latter stresses the concealing.190 It is, in this sense, that we have spoken of Being as giving and withholding; approaching and withdrawing; presencing and absencing. The third way of rendering aletheia refers to the metaphysical understanding of the term, in which it comes to mean truth, certitude and correctness as opposed to falsity, uncertitude and incorrectness.191 The fourth way of understanding aletheia means the unconcealment or the clearing of Being. We will consider this meaning of aletheia in detail.

The essence of aletheia as ‘unconcealment’ is openness,192 which is unconcealed in aletheia. But this openness is not the result of an unconcealment, but rather unconcealment occurs only because the fundamental openness lets it occur by being its source and foundation. There is a genuine freedom associated with the unconcealing of the openness.193 It is in relation to this freedom that the essence of the openness lightens up.194 The openness is the ‘play-ground’ (Spielraum) and is the lighting or clearing (Lichtung). The openness is the shelter of Being195 and in the open-shelter of Being each of the unconcealed is sheltered.196 Heidegger clarifies this un-concealing dimension of aletheia in terms of the image of forest-clearing (Waldlichtung). Clearing of the forest is associated with a dense forest which fully hides its expanse. The clearing of the forest involves letting light in, or letting the forest be open and free. The letting-light-in presupposes the openness of the forest. Thus, clearing lets the open expanse of the forest ‘be’ there for everything to be sheltered in.197 Through this image, Heidegger understands aletheia as the clearing.198 It refers to the primordial realm of the open, out which the interplay of revealing and concealing and the mirror-play of the fourfold comes-to-pass. In other words, aletheia as unconcealment, reveals the realm of Ereignis, viz., the event of appropriation, in which man belongs to Being and beings are sheltered in the historical unfolding of Being in the play of time and space.

Since aletheia is unconcealment of the truth of Being in the event of appropriation, there naturally involves a role for Dasein to play in this unconcealing process, as he is the seer of the truth of Being. So we could highlight the role played by man in the revealing process of Being. "Mortals are irrevocably bound to the revealing-concealing gathering which lights up everything present in its presencing".199 Man, as the thinker of Being, opens himself to the mystery of Being; man, as ek-sistence and dweller in the nearness of Being, stands in the open of the clearing and looks (blickt) into it; and finally, man, as the shepherd and seer of the truth of Being, sees (sieht) into the openness of Being. As man sees into the openness to Being, Being itself frees for itself the `it is’ of each entity. In this freeing, Being looks at (anblickt) man in his shepherding of the openness of Being.200 Thus, by his seeing into Being, man lets Being look at him. The mutual look (Blick) is the belonging-together of Being and man, in which aletheia or the unconcealing of being occurs. Man alone, as standing in the clearing of Being and as shepherding, preserves the truth of Being. He sees into the openness of Being and lets himself be looked at by Being. In doing so, he becomes a genuine seer of the truth of Being. Aletheia, as unconcealment of Being, needs man for its revealing of Being. Being, as the clearing of truth needs Dasein for its clearing. That is why Heidegger says that "human nature is given over to truth, because truth needs man".201 But since the truth of Being is that which lets man belong to Being in the first place, Being is primary in this process. Even though priority lies in Being, yet Being needs man in that its truth is preserved by means of man’s seeing into the openness of Being. Thus, we can say that aletheia, as the unconcealment of Being, happens only in relation to the mutual look of Being and man, i.e. in their belonging-together.

The truth of Being can be attained by Dasein’s openness to language, the house of Being, besides his openness to aletheia. When Heidegger speaks of language, he does not refer to the metaphysical-technological language. Such a language simply informs or gives information202 and so lacks genuine speaking. Neither does Heidegger understand language as commonly understood, viz., as an expression (Ausdruecken) and an activity (Taetigkeit) of man. It is, firstly, an expression as it utters or externalizes something that is internal. Secondly, language is an activity because it is something that comes about as a result of man’s speaking.203 For Heidegger, understanding language in this way does not take us to the essence of language. It can only be reached when we consider the being (Wesen) of language.204 In order to inquire into the being of language, we must ask ourselves, as to the way language, as language, occurs. In other words, in order to understand language in its being, we, instead of talking about language, must let language speak to us in its being. So, only by letting the language speak within itself, can we bring language, as language, i.e., in its being, into language.205 

In order that language may speak to us in its being, Heidegger goes on to analyze the pre-Socratic notion of ‘logos’, which means both Being (Sein) and language (saying).206 ‘Logos’ is derived from the verb ‘legein’, which is equivalent to the German ‘legen’ (to lay) and Latin ‘legere’ (to read). The Greek ‘legein’, like its Latin and German equivalents, has the nuance of ‘collecting or bringing together’, i.e., a laying which gathers.207 As a laying that gathers, ‘legein’ keeps the gathered in the open. In this sense, ‘legein’ means to say (sagen). For saying (die Sage) consists in the letting-lie-together, as gathered, before that which gathers.208 Thus, the essence of language, as saying, in its original Greek sense is "the gathering letting-lie-before of what is present in its presencing".209 In other words, saying or language, in the original sense of ‘logos’ and ‘legein’ is a showing (Zeige) or a letting-appear. Therefore, the analysis of the primordial Greek term ‘logos’ lets language, as language, speak of itself from within itself — in its being — as a saying that shows something or that lets something appear. "To say (language, as saying) means to show, to make appear the lighting — concealing — revealing offer of world".210 

The above quotation from Heidegger not only indicates what language, as saying, is, but also what it shows or makes appear, viz., the world. The naming of a thing, by the word211 is a calling of the thing to its being, i.e., the thinging of the thing.212 The word is unfolded in the thinging of the things, i.e. in the gathering and bringing near of the fourfold — the earth, the sky, the divinities and the mortals. In other words, in naming the world, in saying that a thing ‘is’ in its being, or a thing things (bedingt),213 we are saying the same thing. The thinging of the thing is the worlding of the world and the presencing of the presencing. Thus, language as the saying that shows, is nothing other than Being as the worlding in its revealing-concealing character, and which unfolds in history in the time-space-play.214 It is language as saying, understood in this way alone, that genuinely speaks215 as the peal of stillness.216 

The house of Being is language as saying, that is, it shows the world in its time-space-play and lets happen the difference (Unterschied) for world and things217 by worlding the world in the fourfold.218 Language protects the presencing of Being by bringing into light the truth of Being.219 In other words, language is the house that gathers everything in it, so that in this house they find their essence, their name and their being. By providing protection (die Hut) and housing the beings in being, language houses Being. It is in language that the truth of Being is guarded. Language is the house of Being, because language as saying is a mode of appropriation220 and belongs to the realm of Ereignis. Language is the mode of appropriation; in revealing it withholds.221 Its movement is historical, i.e., epochal222 and calls to difference between world (Being) and things (beings).223 Language, when seen in terms of the event of appropriation, is not inaccessible to man. As the seer, man sees the truth of Being that is found in language, the house of Being.

Language, the house of Being, needs man in order that it speak of Being. Man plays a great role in the linguistic manifestation of Being. Speaking of the role of man in seeing the truth of Being, as it comes to pass in language, Heidegger says: "Language speaks. Man speaks only in so far as he corresponds to language".224 Man is neither the inventor nor the speaker of language. He is the co-speaker, and is capable of passing on the speaking of Being. "Man is capable of speaking only insofar as he, belonging to saying, listens to saying, so that in resaying it he may be able to say a word".225 Though man is a co-speaker and is enabled by language in his speaking, yet language needs him, in order that this `peal of stillness’ can be brought into speech. "Saying is in need of [man for] being voiced in the world".226 In his belonging to the stillness of language, man speaks aloud in his own unique way.227 The different languages are different ways of responding to speaking aloud the silent voice of language. But, though man speaks in various languages which consist of `terms’ (Woerter), the genuine responding is done in words (Worte), which is beyond the linguistic differences. In genuine speaking man does not speak about languages, but rather speaks from the primordial language, which is the basis of all human speaking.228 

Man’s response to the silent presencing of language presupposes a listening.229 In listening man lets-himself-be-spoken-to. It is in letting oneself into saying230 that one can see the Being that is housed in language as saying. One needs to keep a listening silence. Just as man responds to the speaking of language by speaking aloud what is heard in language, in the same way the peal of silence of the saying must be received or listened to by a corresponding silence.231 In this way, by speaking and keeping silence, man listens and thereby corresponds to language.232 Thus, man comes to attain the truth of Being in language when the belonging-together of Being as speaking (Sprechen) and man cor-respond (Ent-sprechen). In the speaking-corresponding relationship, man sees his unity with Being, the difference between world (Being) and things (beings) and the time-space-play manifestation of Being in history. As the seer and shepherd of the house of Being, i.e. language, it is man’s home as well. He guards his home, viz. language, by shepherding the Being it houses.

In the state of care, Dasein has an inconsistent perception of himself because he sees himself on the one hand as an all powerful, self-sufficient being and, on the other hand, as an anxious, helpless, dependent and finite being. Seen in both of these aspects Dasein stands completely alone. As a self-sufficient being, Dasein stands alone because he is not in need of any other reality to know the truth about himself, the meaning of his life and even his authentic existence. As a finite and dependent being, Dasein stands alone in his anxiety because there is no one to help the anxious Dasein. This point is clearly illustrated in the fact that existential guilt, existential limitations and existential death must be faced by Dasein all alone, as no one can take his place relating to these. Even the so-called relatedness to Being, entities and other Daseins does not add anything to the self-hood of Dasein. The much talked about relationship to Being, viz., Dasein’s pre-conceptual understanding of Being, seems to be only a theoretical awareness of Dasein, rather than a real relationship of unity between Being and Dasein. This also is clear from the fact that at the end of Being and Time, we know more about the Dasein who questions than what is questioned, viz., Being and the meaning of Being.233 In other words, Being and Time does not succeed in establishing a real relationship between Dasein and Being. All these points amply prove that, in the state of care, Dasein is totally alone, completely cut off from every other entity and fully closed up within himself.

Even though Being is the closest to Dasein in this relationship of belonging-together, 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 the entities, Being is, in some sense, far away from Dasein. Being always remains a mystery to Dasein. He can never get hold of the whole of Being. Dasein experiences Being in different attunements: Being as the Joyous is experienced in joy; Being as the totally other is experienced in dread and wonderment; Being as the Holy and the Source is experienced in reverence; and Being as the one that does not admit complete and immediate experience, i.e., Being as the Immediate that is inaccessible, is experienced in the attunement of awe.234 All such attunements and dispositions constitute the affective temper of the authentic Dasein in his experience of Being. But these attitudes do not depend on Dasein, but are 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 experiences it as revealing and concealing, giving and withdrawing, presencing and absencing, all according to the attunements produced in Dasein by the different modes of the manifestation of Being. This manner of Being’s giving makes Dasein continue his seeking of Being. Even in the state of Being-centered living, Dasein must continue to be the lighting-up-place of Being and shepherd the revelation of Being in himself and in entities. In this continued seeking, receiving and shepherding of Being, Dasein moves towards his total authenticity.