O grande ser da alma deve ser o “lugar de nascimento” do Filho, a “clareira” na qual o Pai engendra o seu Filho. O grande ser do Dasein deve ser o lugar da verdade, a clareira onde se realiza o “acontecimento da apropriação” (Ereignis), o acontecimento da verdade. Em ambos os casos, a verdadeira dignidade do homem reside na sua pobreza, isto é, no modo humilde como ele fornece um abrigo e uma preservação para um acontecimento transcendente. O homem não pode, de modo algum, realizar este acontecimento por si próprio; pode apenas fazer uma “clareira” onde o acontecimento possa ter lugar. Existe um paralelo convincente entre a forma como Heidegger articula o acontecimento da verdade e a forma como Eckhart descreve o nascimento do Filho, um paralelo que faz sobressair de forma marcante a afinidade entre o pensador e o místico.
(…) Para Heidegger, Ser “é” (west) o próprio processo de realização em Dasein, e Dasein “é” o próprio processo de deixar Ser revelar-se. A “relação” entre Ser e Dasein não é algo acrescentado a nenhum deles. Pelo contrário, a entidade essencial (Wesen) de cada um deve estar relacionada ao outro. Assim, num texto que, deste ponto de vista, é muito interessante, Heidegger fala dos “mortais” (Dasein) como “das wesende Verhältnis zum Sein als Sein” (GA7:177/179). É claro que “Wesen” é para ser entendido verbalmente, e por isso esta frase significa: a relação com o Ser (Sein) cuja essência (Wesen) é para essenciar (”wesen” tomado como um infinitivo) uma relação. Utilizando a sugestão de Adamczewski de que “Wesen” seja traduzido como “modo de ser”, a frase significa: a relação com o Ser cujo modo de ser é ser/estar relacionado. O Ser do Dasein é estar relacionado com Ser; para o Dasein, ser é estar relacionado (esse est referri). Assim, também Heidegger propõe algo como uma “relação subsistente” (ein wesendes Verhältnis) entre Ser e Dasein.
The great being of the soul is to be the “birth place” of the Son, the “clearing” in which the Father engenders His Son. The great being of Dasein is to be the place of truth, the clearing in which the “event of appropriation” (Ereignis), the event of truth, comes to pass. In both cases, the true dignity of man lies in his poverty, i.e., in the humble way in which he provides a shelter and a preserve for a transcendent event. Man can in no way effect this event of himself; he can only make a “clearing’’ in which it might take place. There is a convincing parallel between the way in which Heidegger articulates the event of truth and the way that Eckhart describes the birth of the Son, a parallel which brings out in a striking way the affinity between the thinker and the mystic.
For Meister Eckhart, the Father and the Son exist in a “subsistent relation” to one another, i.e., their relationship to one another is not something added on to either. Rather, the very being of the Father is to give birth, and the very being of the Son is to be born. Neither Father nor Son subsists apart from their relation to one another. They subsist in this relation; they are this relation. Now since, in Eckhart’s mystical theology, the inner life of the Trinity is extended to the soul, Eckhart is able to speak in the same terms of the relationship between the Father and the soul:
What is our name and what is our father’s name? Our name is that we must be born and our father’s name is to bear . . . (Q, 220,6-8/Serm., 238)
The essential being of the Father is to give birth; the essential being of the soul is to have the Son born in it. Now it is very revealing to see how closely Heidegger’s expression of the relationship between Being and Dasein approximate Eckhart’s views. For Heidegger, Being “is” (west) the very process of coming to pass in Dasein, and Dasein “is” the very process of letting Being reveal itself. The “relationship” between Being and Dasein is not something added on to either. (163) Rather, the essential being (Wesen) of each is to be related to the other. Thus, in a text which from this point of view is most interesting, Heidegger speaks of “mortals” (Dasein) as “das wesende Verhältnis zum Sein als Sein” (VA , 177/179). Of course, “Wesen” is to be understood verbally, and so this phrase means: the relationship to Being (Sein) whose being (Wesen) is to be (’’wesen” taken as an infinitive) a relation. Using Adamczewski’s suggestion that “Wesen’’ be translated as “way to be,” the phrase means: the relationship to Being whose way to be is to be related. The Being of Dasein is to be related to Being; for Dasein, to be is to be related (esse est referri). Thus Heidegger too proposes something of a “subsistent relationship” (ein wesendes Verhältnis) between Being and Dasein.
]