[Draftcasino.com]

What is understanding?

It is understanding (panna) in the sense of act of understanding (pajanana). What is this act of understanding?

It is knowing (janana) in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving (sanjanana) and cognising (vijanana).

For though the state of knowing (janana-bhava) is equally present in perception (sanna) , in consciousness (vinnana) and in understanding (panna), nevertheless, perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful and not-self.

Consciousness knows the object as blue or yellow and it brings about the penetrating of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the [supramundane] path.

Understanding knows the object in a way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path.

Suppose there were three people, a child without discretion, a villager and a money changer, who saw a heap coins lying on a money changer's counter.

The child without discretion knows merely the coins are figured and ornamented, long, square or round; he does not know that they are reckoned as valuable for human use and enjoyment.

And the villager knows they figured and ornamented, etc, and that they are reckoned for human enjoyment; but he does not know such distinctions as "this one is genuine, this is false, this is half value'.

The money changer knows all those kinds and he does so by looking at the coin and by listening to the sound of it when struck and by smelling its smell, tasting its taste and weighing it in his hand and he knows it was made in a certain village or town or city or on a certain mountain or by the banks of a certain river and that is was made by a certain master.

And this may be understood as an illustration.

Perception is like a child without discretion see the coin because it apprehends the mere mode of appearance of the object as blue and so on.

Consciousness is like the villager seeing the coin because it apprehends the mode of the object as blue, etc, and because it reaches further, reaching the penetration of its characteristics.

Understanding is like the money changer seeing the coin because after apprehending the mode of the object as blue, etc, and extending to the penetration of the characteristics, it extends still further, reaching the manifestation of the path.

This is why this act of understanding should be understood as 'knowing in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving and cognising'.

For that is what the words 'it is understanding in the sense of act of understanding' refer to.

XIV, 3 - 5

[lasadeykar]

Sutta comparison:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives (sañjānāti) earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives (maññati) about earth, he conceives in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows (abhiññāya) earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows (abhiññāya) earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

Mulapariyaya Sutta

[Sthjrderfida]

I have a copy of this tortuous tome somewhere on my shelves. I admit, I don't like it at all.

Still, interesting to see it thus dissected by element.

[juidizHusw]

interesting to see it thus dissected by element

Yes indeed. Your input to the group is always greatly appreciated, Element.

[Meowmeowz]

I admit, I don't like it at all.

tortuous

Indeed. Very Abdhidhammic. However, I enjoyed the excerpt I posted.

[exhibeKed]

There are "Yatana 16" in Visuddhimagga which I use for check back my practice. But only some step I found. Some could not because each one each experience.
The adventage is this make me sure the way I practice.
For example. The first step "Nama rupa pariccheda yatana (I don't know exactly pali - this pali from Thai pronounce)", I found that this is close to the separation of observer and object.