Odd… I found this website, which says there are different kinds of love… It seems to make a lot of sense, and kinda makes me think, considering the many “romance” dreams I tend to have.
Interesting I think that is really weird. Before I though we experiencelove in a similar way. 
Timothy Leary said that all emotions are illusory and love is the only real feeling a person can have that has any permanence or meaning whatsoever.
I would think the Buddhists feel the same, that beneath all the conditional emotions that require, demand, and involve grasping and clinging, is (bad)emptiness, and suffering.
Transcendence of these temporary emotions yields way to a state of complete and total fulfillment that is unconditional, that is, arises simply because it exists, and no effort must be made to sustain it.
Eckhart Tolle says the Power of NOW that love is impossible until we are enlightened.
I do not really feel that any of those definitions at all describe love. This definition of agape is better IMO.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
Perhaps the worst thing to see is the atrophy of love in the family unit. We throw the word around, but if we don’t mean it when we say “I love you” then it’s kind of just like saying “what’s up”.
We have to reconnect. We have to be sincere. We have to be willing to stare into the “other’s” eyes until they are no longer an “other”.
Throw away the scripts you’ve been given about dating and romance and be your own director, be sincere, be real, be totally honest… and be patient.
and something a friend and I talked about… if you really truely love each other, no matter how the relationship ends, it will be okay. If you spend your whole lives together, it is okay. If you split ways, it’s okay. If it’s truely heart centered and not based on attachment.
I’ve believed this for a long time now. While it can be nice to remind someone that you love them, I find that most of the time it isn’t really heartfelt, and is said out of habit, not out of sincerity. I find it sad.
You’ve read Eckhart Tolle, hunh? Hopefully you got something out of his teachings. I think he’s a genius. Or, to phrase another way: one of the few enlightened ones.
I won’t even try to define or give my own thoughts on love. It is so complicated, it’s simple, and so simple, it’s complicated. It’s like nothing else on Earth.
Love is action and sacrifice, and is unpleasant as often as it is wonderful as a result. One does not need to be enlightened to love well. It is constant awareness of your beloved’s needs and then making the necessary adjustments to meet them. It is also not letting your needs become trivialized. You can not love other’s healthfully if you do not believe in your own worth.
Love is not a feeling. It is not words. It is not the butterflies we get when we see or think of a special new person in our lives, though that feeling may arise from true love. Once I accepted this I stopped “falling in love,” which has only served to cause an emptiness in me.
This is obviously a very condensed definition 
This is speaking from personal experience as well as The Road Less Travelled by M. Scott Peck which is an amazing truthful book about the nature of people and what we can do to grow and mature. I highly recommend it to everyone.
I actually bought that book about a year ago. Hmmm, maybe I will finally read it. Thanks for reminding me of it 
Hrrm I finished the book today. It was great. In the book, Peck has an interesting theory that love is simply wishing someone to grow spiritually.
In the book though, he didn’t really define what growing spiritually was though. Or was it to love people the most to our ability?
Very compelling stuff, I love the way he writes It’s not that he defines love as simply “wishing” for a beloved to spiritually grow, as that does not entail any effort. He defines it as “the will to extend oneself for the spiritual growth of the self or another.” I think I quoted that right, I don’t have the book here with me at work 
. And with that will you must take action.
As far as what Peck believes spiritual growth is, I took it as the perpetual dedication to doing the right thing, to truth (which takes pertetual observation and analysis of one’s actions/reactions/beliefs and making as many positive adjustments as humanly possible). He talks about man’s inherent laziness as the original sin, the force of entropy that keeps us from growing. Fighting that force, taking the hard route even though it will mostly cause more pain than the easy way, one will grow spiritually. Maybe that’s more of just how it’s done though?
How about this; spiritual growth is the process of shedding selfish and narrow-minded beliefs and actions in the best interest of the evolution of mankind? I’m no Mrs. Webster 
. What is your take?
He didn’t really give an outright definition, but here’s what I got out of it: continue learning, continue to strive to improve throughout life, and attempt to love others to the best of one’s ability. These things may sound simple, but each of these are lifelong, difficult goals, things that will never be fully achieved.
I agree that narrow-mindedness only hinders growth. Keeping an open mind is one of the most important things. When we become close minded, it is a form of arrogance I believe. Who is to say that the information given is incorrect, or if the music playing is bad?
Also of importance is self-discipline. Without self-dsicipline, none of these goals would be possible to attain.
Anyways, that was what I got from the book. These things seem easy to do, but to actually believe in these things and attempt them all the time is easier said than done. The book serves as a good motivator to accomplish these things, though. It is very positive and encouraging, and serves it’s role as a compass in the path of life quite well. I recommend it fully for those that don’t know what to do with their lives.