“What is Ereignis?” is a question that is halted on the hurdle of its very possibility of accord. For it is necessary that Being first be granted to us so that we may accord our question with Ereignis, which itself is originary accord. If we think of the simplicity of Being as what gives us the world in an accord and accords us with it, then it is no longer Being conceived as a supreme concept that determines the advent-in the sense that Ereignis is this or that—but the advent that freely grants Being. Being would then be a mode of Ereignis, not Ereignis a mode of being (Dann ware das Sein eine Art des Ereignisses und nicht das Ereignis eine Art des Seins).
(TB, 21, mod.)

Once more Heidegger is careful when dealing with this “reversal” (Umkehrung): Here the chiasmus can no longer play out since we have arrived at the central point where the four branches are crossed, at the simple point without dimension that sheds light without being itself part of the clearing. To be sure, there is no more presence between Being and Ereignis. Thought, watchful for forgiveness, only allows the same to come forth: Das Ereignis ereiggnet, the accord accords what is ownmost, which must be heard at the same time as “what is ownmost” and “what is ownmost.” Being and ownmost: accord.

The “‘es gibt’ das Sein” (‘There is’ Being) in the Letter on Humanism (LH 1976, 214) already owns a legacy to the “‘There is ‘Being” of Sein und Zeit (SZ, 212) and proves the marvelous unity of a path that never deflected from its own course. This unity is what accords thought with the peace of silence.

The only thing left to is to listen to the simple murmur “Es—das Ereignis—eignet” (OWL, 128) in the silent lightning of Ereignis within which we anticipate such an accord, “Being disappears within Ereignis” (TB, 22)

Pp. 118-9

¶ 11:06 AM