In addition to that, one really may say that Life begins there where our familiar classical organic chemistry ends. But this restriction devalues the whole statement and leads to the question whether not Life clearly begins there where the not-anymore-familiar-to-us special organic chemistry begins, which then should be an organic chemistry.
The living system exhibits a certain coexistence of compounds [alleged or real (solitary) ], but this is -- despite of whatever importance it might have -- unspecific, whereas only the one-molecule is the fundamentally significant [condition]. In this one-molecule the system-order documents itself, rendering the temporal change (only involving parts) insignificant, so that we may ignore this temporal change [ The one living molecule is a true Substance, meaning that it remains the same under change (which change is then called "accidental"].
If the possibility of a scientific explanation of Life were coincident with the familiar physical-chemical, then we would have already finished this explanation, because then still more empirical details, yet to come, would not add more to the overall essential. In order to really make progress, the means and methods of investigation, that, until now, come from the physically inorganic, must be replaced by such means and methods coming from the organismic living condition itself. The fact that physical and chemical methodology do provide much help and footing, is a great advantage, but that it exalts us slavishly to hold onto its success, is a significant grave disadvantage.