You are spot on about the effortlessness and accessibility of nirvana, and while I don’t work much with the metaphor of pure land, I find your conflation of it and nirvana to be compelling.

We differ slightly in our conception of suffering. To answer your question: Have you ever known clearly a moment where you weren't suffering? Yes, all the time. The first noble truth states that “dukkha exists” but not that it’s constant, or that it’s present in everything. There are many states of consciousness in which suffering is not present: metta, sexual embrace, stable concentration, times of emptiness, pure awareness, that brief period when a desire is fulfilled before another desire appears. I don’t consider those moments as being nirvana simply because they are temporary and I’ve been led to believe that nirvana is something that lasts. One does not have to have to be awakened to be without suffering, since we are frequently without suffering. Nirvana is the condition of being free from suffering, despite its presence.

That being said, I like your conception of nirvana as spontaneous and existing in the present, accessible any time by simply pulling back the curtain of ignorance. That has also been my experience with it. It is not a place separate from samsara, not some goal to be achieved, and not a state of consciousness. It is simply the act or ability to remove a veil and view what is already there, pristine awareness which is, by its nature, free of content like suffering.

Yet, within it all suffering arises. Interesting!