Simple vs. Complicated

The direct path of non-duality rings through and true to me; but some questions peppered me yesterday when I was reading a lucid and thorough book of Buddha dharma and maps of the states of consciousness.

Specifically, there is something in me that averts or contracts when presented with the complicated and wants to settle in the simple.

I get it when I'm reading books - I want the story but am frustrated with having to either skip by the names and their labeled relationships to others (too much to remember) or stop and absorb them, which seems to take to long and leads me to a feeling of frustrated knots.

I get it when reading technical-ish papers that refer back x pages to a diagram to make a point (ok, maybe that's just frustration with poor readability).

And yes, when it comes to Buddha dharma. So much to ingest! So many details! So much description! And yet so valid, tested and true. And yet, when I read it, I contract away from it.

And then there is non-dual inquiry, which really all boils down to a couple of questions:

(a) How many? (are you separate from...)
(b) If a is >1, investigate
(c) Repeat until a is not-two.

Even with the problem of Buddha dharma and my contraction, I can apply non-dual inquiry. Do I feel separated from the dharma? Why? Investigate.

And at the end of the investigation, I might engage in something I was never separated from in the first place. Or not. Or both. Or neither. In any case, I will be where I was at the start of the investigation, just less occluded.