The human being's finitude consists in [the fact] that he is not able to experience the presence of beings as a whole, as what has already been, and as what is still to come as an immediately given presence. [He is not able to experience] the presence of being in a nunc stans [standing now]. In Christianity such a thing is reserved for God. Christian mysticism also wanted nothing else. (All Indian "meditation" also wants nothing else than to obtain this experience of the nunc stans, to realize it as the ascent to the nunc stans, in which past and future are sublated [aufgehoben] into one unchanging present.)

Finitude can be better said to be the other way around: It is the experience of the presence of beings in the three [temporal] modes of having been, present, and future.

I am no longer speaking of finitude now, but rather say: The human being's richness consists precisely [in the fact] that he is not dependent upon the mere presence of a sequence of "nows," through which I cannot understand the whole of being and whereby it remains closed [to me] that Da-sein, in its unfolding essence, has emerged into the fullness of these [temporal] modalities.

That the human being must die does not follow from his being needed [Gebrauchtwerden] by the disclosive appropriating Event [Ereignis]. It is simply a fact that he must die.

MB: Then in what way is Heidegger's conception of the matter of being more adequate than Indian thought, which does not need a guardian of clearedness? Because according to it [Indian thought], the emergence (Brahman) of the clearedness exists in itself. It illuminates itself and everything which may emerge in it. It is independent from any being that would still be needed expressly as guardian and the one who enduringly sustains [Aussteher] this clearedness.

MH:My conception is more adequate, insofar as I am proceeding from Da-sein and from [its] understanding of being, and insofar as I limit myself to what can be experienced immediately. Thus, I do not need to assert anything about clearedness in itself. I also do not need to interpret the human being as a manifestation [Erscheinungsform] of the clearedness, whereby the being-in-the-world and the standing in the clearing of being as a distinctive character, as the distinctive character of the human being would become nonessential. Above all, the above quoted Indian insight cannot be assimilated into my thinking.

MB: Nevertheless, the Indians, who are experienced in meditation, maintain that immediate experience includes the capacity for seeing that the basic unfolding essence of the human being, but also of all other beings, belongs immediately to the clearedness in itself. One must know, not "interpret," that it [man's basic unfolding essence] coconstitutes [mitausmachen] the clearedness.

MH: Hellen [to clear], along with hell [clear], mean the same as Hallen [to resound] in the sense of "resounding." In the sense of the [primordial] event of the self-manifestation of being, Hellen [to clear] occurs originally as Hallen [sounding], as tone. All other beings fall short of this fundamental tone [Grundton]. How close this is to Indian insights into ultimate truths is best shown by my assertion: "Language is the house of being."

P. 179-81

¶ 4:56 AM