Defining Understanding

Richard Mason, pg 1
"The title of this book is reflexive because the subject matter is. Anyone presenting a theory about understanding must be aiming to understand it: surely a philosophical task. But there is need to tread carefully, to avoid begging the question. To set off by trying to define understanding would be a poor start. Can we assume that a definition--or theory--offers a route to understanding?"

After rereading this, I thought understanding is quite ineffable, and nailing it down to a single definition or theory would be narrowing, if not obfuscatory. If any theory applies to understanding it must be one that preserves, or even enhances and furthers the diaspora of definitions or theories, that is encourages a variety of understandings.
The end of chapter 3, Mason writes, "A more positive conclusion might be that liberation from a model of understanding based on epistemology might be beneficial. Instead of looking for a fundamental, reductionist theory of understanding, we could simply try to understand it, in its manifold forms," (pg 49).
I agree with Mason on this, and would like to hear your thoughts; if you haven't fallen asleep yet.