But, to tell you the truth, while, on the one hand, I find something intriguing about this kind of love (for obvious reasons), on the other hand, I find something ominous and disgusting about it as well. Firstly (and most obviously) what this kind of love entails is the complete dependence of one person on the other. To say "I cannot live without you" or "I am incomplete without you" is to say that I depend on you. So in the case of true love, if your lover is to die or to disappear from your life, your life would become impossible as well. Hence, you get people like Devdas who become incapable of living or functioning without their lover and who ultimately end up with suicide or self-destruction. Or you get people mourning and pining over their lost love, even though they clearly know that they can never have them.
Secondly, I think there is a kind of tyranny that occurs in this kind of love. "You must love me, only me, and not anyone else!" Isn't that the refrain of just about every romantic lover? So you get Devdas saying "I don't like anybody touching you" and not even letting a fly (a fly!) touch Paro. I'm amused that people find this kind of attitude beautiful (maybe it is in some ways). But, personally, I find it quite disturbing as well. There is a sort of possessiveness that directly says: "You are my property! I own you! I alone and nobody else can have you! Don't even dare to desire anybody else!" How disgusting to say such a thing ?! Only tyrants and bosses say things like that!
But, more importantly, what I find ominous in this kind of love is the notion of union itself - the notion of two souls becoming one. Because I think this kind of "unity" erases individuality. That is to say, in this kind of love, you live for each other and not for oneself. Now you might say, "What's wrong with that? To live for oneself is selfishness! Isn't love all about being selfless and sacrificing yourself for the other?" Well, maybe! But what if you can have a kind of love where selfishness and selflessness are not opposed? That is to say, a kind of love where you live for yourself and at the same time you live for others as well. A kind of relationship in which we get intimate with each other... and yet we let each other be. Wouldn't that be great? The great poet Rainer Maria Rilke gives us exactly that kind of love.
Rilke's love is a love that is not based on the union of two souls, but on the acknowledgement of each other's individual soul! That is to say, Rilke sees that to love is not to merge or to become one with the other person, but, on the contrary, it is to let the other person be and respect his/her individual life.
"The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky."
"Loving does not at first mean merging, surrendering, and uniting with another person (for what would a union be of two people who are unclarified, unfinished, and still incoherent?)..."
- Rilke (Letter #7, "Letters to a Young Poet." Click here if you are interested in reading the entire letter.)
This kind of love does away with all the tyranny, jealousy, insecurity, tension, possessiveness, restlessness, etc. that comes with the traditional kind of love, but, at the same time, it is just as (if not more) true, pure, and passionate as the other kind of love. It does not say, "You must love me, only me, and not anyone else!" Rather, it respects the other person's desires and decisions. If she does not love you back or she ends up loving someone else, you respect that and you let go of her. That does not mean you love her any less or that you stop loving her. It just means you love her so much that her happiness is your happiness. And if her happiness consists in moving away from you, you joyfully accept it.
That is to say, this kind of love does not see a lover as an object that one owns, but rather as an individual who has a life of their own. It does not demand that your lover always be together with you, or that you depend on each other. It does not say, "I cannot live without you" or "I am incomplete without you." On the contrary, this kind of love acts independently and freely. It is a kind of love that is not about constraining each other but about liberating each other by acknowledging each other's individuality, and helping each other to grow as such. It sees the solitary soul in oneself as well as in one's lover, and instead of trying to erase it through union, it tries to preserve it.
In short, it is a love that respects each other's presence. A mature love, finally!