Question:
I understand the "theory" of Pureland Buddhism, and can logically appreciate it, but I have a very hard time believing in the literal descriptions of the Pureland in the sutras, and to a great extent, believing in a literal Amitabha (and other bodhisattvas).
Response:
As Venerable Master Chin Kung has explained, the Amitabha Sutra is a condensation of the Infinite Life Sutra, which is a condensation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Thomas Cleary’s translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra is about 1600 pages. We can only imagine the difficulty of trying to condense 1600 pages into a dozen pages!
The Buddha was trying to describe for future ordinary, unawakened beings a wonderful and pure land. But he knew this land was beyond our ability to visualize even if he elaborately described it to us. It would have been like trying to describe a color to a person who was color blind. And so the Buddha used terms and imagery that we were familiar with, knowing that with the passage of time, wise masters would study, learn, and practice the sutra and its teachings. They would then explain what the Buddha was speaking of to those who were less accomplished.
They would explain that the golden ground symbolized purity, unlike the dirt in our world that can become muddy or rock hard. That the four precious jewels represent the four qualities of enlightenment: permanence, joy, true self, and purity, unlike the “jewels” in our world that often represent greed. That the ability to wish for clothing or food actually means that everything is as one desires so there is no anger that someone else has something and I don’t.
So to truly appreciate and believe the sutra, we need to study and learn it, and practice its teachings. Fortunately, we have Great Master Ouyi’s commentary titled Mind-Seal of the Buddhas, which has been translated by J. C. Cleary to study. The master explained in terms that people today can understand the symbolism in the sutra. A copy of the book is available here.
As for believing in a literal Amitabha, Sakyamuni Buddha, our historical Buddha, spoke of the Pure Land and/or Amitabha Buddha in over 200 sutras. Believing in the Buddha who lived in our world 3000 years ago and believing he only spoke the truth would, to me, logically lead to believing what he said. And he spoke of Amitabha Buddha and the Western Pure Land. If we believe the Buddha was enlightened and his wisdom was perfect, how could he have spoken so much about a Buddha and a land that does not exist?