Love is an emotion, but it is not an individual emotion. An individual emotion is only a part of life, not the whole of life. The life force [manifested in individual emotions] breaks its limits and advances forward until it dissipates into all kinds of emotions in order to attain its own satisfaction in the totality of this diversity. But in love the whole does not contain the sum of these many special, separate emotions.
In love, life finds itself as a duality of itself, that is, life finds its own unity with itself. Life must proceed from this undeveloped unity and undergo a tortuous circle of upbringing in order to attain a full unity. The possibility of separation and the [diversity] of the world are opposed to that undeveloped unity. Reflection in the course of development always produces more and more opposites (which are unified in the satisfied lust) until it opposes the whole and objectivity of human life. Finally, AiYang renounces reflection, disappears into complete objectlessness, cancels out all alien personalities of opposites, and thus discovers life itself without further defects. The separation in love certainly exists, but it ceases to exist as a separation, but as a unity; the life of the subject directly feels the life of the [object].
Since love is a direct sense of living things, the distinction between people who have love is only that they are dead, only because they think of the possibility of death, not because they think that in reality they are separators, or that the things of reality are only a combination of what is possible and what exists. There is no substance in the people who have love, they are a living whole. People say that people who have love have independence and have their own principles of life, which simply means that they can die, [they can be separated by death]. It is said that plants have salts and other mineral elements, and that these elements have their own independent effects and their own unique laws, which is based on external reflection, but this only means that plants can rot. But love even seeks to abolish the distinction [between the lover as a lover and the lover as the animal organism], to abolish the possibility of a simple death, and even to associate the dead with eternal immortality.
If the separable elements of the lover retain something peculiar to themselves before they enter into full union, they will be in a difficult situation. Here arises a confrontation: the abolition of the only possible opposition that exists in total devotion, that is, between the abolition of the opposition in the union and the independence that remains. The former [total devotion] feels hindered by the latter's [retained independence]. Love does not allow for separation, nor private property; love is ashamed of its anger at maintaining individuality or independence. Shame is not a touch of a dead flesh, nor is it an expression of man's freedom to maintain himself and freedom to perpetuate his existence.
A soul loyal to love, when attacked by a kind of lovelessness, of course feels the aggression of this hostility, and his shame will turn into anger, which is now only aimed at defending his property and rights. If shame is not the consequence of love, which arises only from the aggression of some hostility, and on the contrary, if shame is something hostile by its nature, and its purpose is to defend one's own infringed property, then we shall say that the tyrants who invade other countries under the pretext of defending the country, the girls who never betray their smiles without money, and the women who are vain and try to attract men are the most shameful people. All these people have no love, and their defense of their flesh is the opposite of the righteous indignation that violates their flesh. They think that the flesh has intrinsic value and that they are shameless.
A pure heart is not ashamed of love, but it is ashamed of its imperfection, and it blames itself for having an external force, an antagonistic thing, hindering the completion of love. What makes a pure heart feel ashamed is only because of the remembrance of the flesh, only by the appearance of an exclusive individual or by the feeling of only an exclusive individual. Shame is not the fear of the dead flesh, of the unique little self, but of the body and the little self itself, which can gradually disappear as the factor of separation from the lover caused by love decreases. Because love is stronger than fear. Love has no fear of its own fear, [or rather, love is not afraid of its own fear], but love is accompanied by its own fear, it abandons all kinds of separation, and worries about finding its resister or strong antagonist.
Love is a mutual take and give, it is ashamed, the giving of love will be scorned, it is ashamed, the acceptance of love can not get the other person's true heart. However, love still strives not to disappoint hope, although it may not find love everywhere. The lover does not accept the love of the other and is therefore richer than the other; he certainly feels richer, but he is never richer than the other. In the same way, the party who gives love will not be made poorer. By giving it to the other, he also enhanced his own treasure.
This wealth of life is won by love in the exchange of all the diversity of thought and soul, because love finds infinite differences and seeks infinite unity, and love turns to nature of infinite diversity in order to absorb the nourishment of love in every life of nature. The most unique things in each person are combined into one in the contact and sympathy of the lover, until the consciousness of the separated self disappears and all differences between the lovers are discarded.
There is the factor of death, the flesh, freed from its separability, and a seed of eternal life, a sprout that eternally develops itself, produces itself, a new thing that is alive. This union will not be split again. [In love, through love], God is at work, God is creating. But this union is only a point, a sprout, [an undifferentiated unity]; lovers cannot contribute to it in order to find diversity in it.
For in this process of union there is no dealing with opposites, it is merely a union without any separation. Everything that can have a diversity and objective existence, this new thing must be introduced into itself, in which opposition arises, and unity is obtained. This bud, which splits from the original unity, moves more and more towards opposites and begins to develop, and each stage of its development is a separation aimed at regaining all the riches of life itself. This shows that the process of its development is like this: unification, separation, recombination. These unions of lovers are separated again, but in infancy the union itself is not separated.
This union of love is certainly perfect, but it is perfect only when the separated lovers are in such an opposing position, that is, one is the one who can be loved and the other is loved, and therefore every separated lover is an organ in the organic whole. But in addition to this, lovers are associated with many dead things, and many external things belong to every lover. That is to say, a lover is in relation to many things which are opposed to him, and which are opposed to him are still opposites or objects in his own view. This is why there may be a variety of antagonisms between lovers in the possession of their many possessions and the enjoyment of their rights. The dead thing, which is dominated by one lover, is opposed to two lovers at the same time, and it seems that such a union can take place only when the dead thing is dominated by both sides.
A lover, when he sees the other person in possession of a certain property, must feel this particularity of the other party, and this particularity is also what he wants. He himself cannot cancel the exclusive domination of that property of the other party, for this would be an objection to the power of the other party, since there can be no relationship with the object other than the domination of the object. He will establish a domination as opposed to the domination of the other, and cancel a relationship between the other, that is, the abolition of all exclusive relations of the other party with respect to his property. Since property and possession constitute such an important part of the thoughts and concerns of people's lives, even between lovers, they cannot fail to consider this aspect of their relationship.
Even if both parties can share property, it is still undecided which party the ownership belongs to, and the idea of such a right will never be forgotten, since everything one possesses has the legal form of property. But if one of the possessors gives the other the right to possess the property in the same way as he himself, then public property also implies only that one or the other of the parties has the right to the thing.