Question: As a budding Buddhist, one cannot help but investigate day to day phenomena with the magnificent tools made available to us by the Buddha. 

An interesting thought occurred to me today and prompted me to ponder the nature of love. The conclusion that was arrived at the end of this particular stream of consciousness is that love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional. It is experiential, highly conditional, impinges on all faculties, and reverberates through the heartstring. As with all formations, it is impermanent. Wordly beings crave it, but few truly uncover it. 

How do other lay people conceptualize love? And how would a monk approach this investigation?

Answer: 
If you mean kind some kind of [romantic love](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)), my own experience isn't the same as yours. You said ...

> 
> love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional
> 
> 
> 

... but I'm not sure I agree:

* "non-hate" -- if the 'love' is the result of (i.e. conditioned by, conditional on) experience[s] that you like, then when the experience ends the love-you-experience becomes aversion-you-experience.
* "non delusional" -- to the extent that "identity view" (of self) is a delusion then love might be a similar type of delusion (e.g. seeing the object of your love as a person who has/is a fixed identity)

In summary I suspect that love is "attachment".

---

There's a book I mentioned in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7760/254) titled *[The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Buddhas-Teachings-Laypeople-Prosperity/dp/0861715470)*. It says that most of the suttas were written by and for monks, but that some of the Buddha's advice was for people in lay society, and it summarizes some of that advice.

---

In my limited experience the good side/aspect of love might be right/moral/ethical actions and views.

In retrospect (i.e. looking back) there was a time in my life when I was motivated by (i.e. when my love was expressed as) wanting to be kind and to do the right thing.

It's these "ethical" actions that I don't regret -- which is inline with the Buddhist suttas, for example the [Kimattha Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html):

> 
> Skillful virtues have **freedom from remorse** as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward
> 
> 
> 

---

It might be worth also considering the [doctrines about admirable friendship](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kalyanamittata.html). The various doctrines (e.g. "Keeping company with the wise" and "Never with an evil companion") suggest that the benefit is conditional on who you love -- i.e. not just on the nature of your love but on the nature of your beloved.

"The whole of the holy life" is I suppose (in context) about the benefit of the monastic sangha; perhaps if you're lucky or wise or both then you might experience something like that in a lay relationship.
The deepest description of love I have come across in my walk is a state where one does not oblige oneself to draw a distinction between one and the subject of one's love. One can give freely to the other, not out of obligation or expectation or even altruism, but simply because one does not see a reason to distinguish between giving to their love and giving to oneself.