I'll address matters in descending order by how much of a problem they were:
-All of the "incorporeal" (rakshasas, if I recall correctly, can be/become corporeal) were incarnated, basically becoming mirrors for this conversation. The "oil sprites" (quotations applied because I'm not sure if that's what they were) were contacted via a Ouija board (you can see the problem); they were sentient and possessed knowledge, but had the attention span of an ADHD puppy. I use plurals in most because I have encountered a plurality of each type, though I (being "mortal") am limited and do not have the greatest list of contacts with most of these types. However, from having discussed with these people/beings/whatever you want to call them, I did have sufficient data to compare their proposed pre-current-incarnation psychologies. Some have claimed a sheer lack of emotion and find their current, human emotions to be interesting in the sense of something new and exotic or else deeply unsettling. Given the variety of traditions associated with love in human culture, my assertion is that your description of pre-incarnate existence sounds too close to your current culture's attitudes towards romance. However, as you say and as I've known with each person I'd talked to regarding such things, your experiences are indeed tainted by your human incarnation.
-Communication is a wonderful thing; the vast majority of all arguments (both the technical and the used definitions - discussion and quarrel, respectively) can usually be ended when both parties understand the terms each other uses. This is the main reason why I ask so many questions. It is rather off-putting for someone to use a word and then be unable/refuse to define it, as it leads to much confusion ("Why would you use the word in the first place?" is a good example of what can be thought, given that most cannot peer into each others minds). Thank you for clarifying various phrases, though I'm sure I have more. For example, "order" and "chaos" as fundamental energies of the cosmos. This could refer to the basic state of matter/energy as tending toward entropy (or "chaos," as some would call it) and away from absolute zero (and thus "order"). In this case, energy holds its standard definition as "the capacity to do work." You could be referring to the element of chance versus the following of patterns (again chaos and order), which some might be able to argue is a force. You could even be describing in odd terms "good" and "evil," in which case I would be utterly perplexed. Would you please clarify this?
-To explain my reasoning on the love = end of existence. Your "race" (I'm not sure if that's a good word to use to describe them, as from how you describe them they are only fundamentally the same in their task, which could be done with otherwise very distinct entities such that they might be considered separate races working in conjunction) is tasked with the very important (as you describe) job of keeping the cosmos balanced. If this task should not be completed, either by a lack of your existence (say before you were created, if such were possible) or because you have failed, existence stops. You maintain that love can/does (you don't really make much of a distinction) interfere with your ability to perform your assigned tasks. It would follow that there is the possibility, however slim, that from being unable to perform your job given your romantic entanglements that existence would stop.
-Free Will: I would ask you to define this and explain why it is necessary or sacred, but I would be better served by pointing you towards the centuries long discourse already in full swing that has generated a large contingent who deny the existence of free will and another contingent who say that the terminology does not make sense. I'm sure the Great Will of the Macrocosm, if it wanted to insure its continued existence, could have created something to keep itself going without granting it free will.
I'd defend my usage of human examples, but I've already made my argument there and I don't think you would respond any differently.
-Shenanigans: I don't take offense at people calling me an RPer (I am) or that my beliefs are shenanigans (I usually think, "Eh, that's your opinion"). However, the term "deity" can and has been applied to beings not belonging to any particular mythos (and the same for "god"). They are, granted, loaded terms. I usually employ the following distinction: a "deity" is a being of immense supernatural power (usually to the point of being unintelligible to mortal minds), while a "god" is an object of worship. I use this so as to delineate ideas better, but they commonly overlap. I cannot say if your group has been worshiped by any race for I simply do not know. However, I can say that under the provided definition for "deity" your race would certainly fall. The power there is comparable to many a number of mythological pantheons in nature. I am incredulous, naturally, but my being flabbergasted and calling shenanigans lies not in the veracity of your statement of power, but in its usage. Calling oneself a deity (by any name) may or may not be true, but that question misses the point that in saying so to the public at large you assert yourself as the superior being, which is by no means tactful or appreciated. There are those who in private have said to me that they believe themselves to be famous people of history or beings of myth and I don't call shenanigans because they are only trying to express something they sincerely hold to be true. The scale you propose and the public format of that proposition, however, does not promote a sense of sincerity.
-Speaking to types of incorporeal beings is a fairly common thing among the "weirder" peoples of the planet, from shaman to schizophrenics and everyone in between. Much of what goes into magical traditions, from witchcraft and modern Wicca to ceremonial magic, tribal medicine, mediumship, and so forth has to do specifically with communicating with the dead and invisible/incorporeal spirits. However, it is far rarer for people to claim to be incredibly important aspects of cosmological function.
My points boil down to two things: first, it is difficult to understand what you're talking about unless you provide more information (which you did and thank you for doing so, though even more would be most helpful) and second, your claim is outlandish enough that a trifle of caution and editing would be very handy. I note that my post was not intended to be exceptionally inflammatory (which both means that I could have made it worse and that I was making an effort to not be horrific). I note this because there are those who wouldn't give such claims anywhere near as much of a chance as I have and, as an incarnate being (or really a being at all), one of the great lessons is to learn to be able to live with other people.
Edit: Changed "ascending" to "descending."