This is a really interesting response. Ya see, I’m currently studying a Tibetan tradition and I’m finding it difficult to fulfill expectations. I’ve tried bringing this up with my teacher–obliquely–but most of the responses are variations on “If you do the practice right, you’ll want to devote that much time” or “You’re experiencing the laziness of attachment.” It feels like they’re expecting an ordained level of practice from non-ordained people. “Householders” don’t seem to be a thing.

And so, part of me has started to look at–you guessed it–Pure Land. Not just for the comparative simplicity but because Avelokiteshvara is the Buddha I feel drawn to most strongly, and his spiritual guide is Amitabha. I feel like following Avelokiteshvara’s example can’t be bad.

Also, this avoids another issue you mentioned, in which one’s Spiritual Guide (i.e., guru or teacher) is an actual person. Such beings are all too prone to exhibiting their nature as samsaric beings. It’s a big stumbling block for me.

Thank you for taking the time to compose such a comprehensive and compassionate response.