Gelassenheit

A strange term of Heidegger's that derives, according to the note in my book, from German Mysticism, particularly Meister Eckhart. I haven't read Eckhart, though I certainly plan to soon. Here's the key passage in Discourse on Thinking:

But will not saying both yes and no this way to technical devices make our relation to technology ambivalent and insecure? On the contrary! Our relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, that is, let them alone, as things which are nothin absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology which expresses "yes" and at the same time "no," by an old word, releasement toward things.

"Releasement towards things" is the translation of Gelassenheit in my edition, but I'm undecided what I think of that meaning. Don't we also have to hold back? It's almost a passivity that occurs as result of a denial (which, as far as I know, is consistent with Eckhart). Later on in the essay, even Heideger speaks of the fact that Gelassenheit only happens through "persistent, courageous thinking." Yes and no. But what constitutes the Yes? (Will? even Schopenhauerian Will?) And what constitutes the No? (Nihilism? Being-Towards-Death? Vattimo's "twisting"?)

Heidegger, it seems to me, has become almost explicitly religious here, if not in the sense of speaking of God, but of a "higher mystery." My own inclination is to read this in classic existentialist terms, as a "nothing" or "the absurd" but Heidegger's meaning I think is something much more....peaceful I guess. Ego-less? I don't know Heidegger's feelings towards Schopenhauer, but from a few comments here and there I gather he didn't like him much, and even found him petty in his attacks on Hegel. (Petty? probably. Funny? absolutely. Maybe that's just my sense of humor though.) He prefers Eckhart's positive version of this I think. But is there a difference? Is the nothing of Being taken as something? Isn't the idea that Gelassenheit opens us, more or less, to an experience of God in the form of a "higher mystery"? (And wouldn't this, in the end, simply be a version of the great sin of philosophy that Heidegger harps about so often in Being and Time: taking Being as a being?) I know that Heidegger knows this. He even, for a time, wrote "Being" literally crossed out. So what is he up to here?

I wish I knew more about theology, but I wonder if direct experience of god in a Fallen existence is possible or, indeed, orthodox. And wouldn't it just as likely be something terrible and frightening? Is the endless deferral of something like Gelassenheit (and perhaps Deconstruction, but I'm not sure) a form of world deferral that turns toward God? Or the Nothing? (Take your pick.)