Snowbird, thank you. I’d rather not say who it is. I’ve seen some discussions devolve into a critique of a person a few times and I’d rather not subject this person to that. I’ll take a look at the resources you gave. Thank you so much! The person who gave this dharma instruction using “knowing” called it out as different from seeing.
1 Like
Hello Patricia. The word ‘pajanati’ is found in many suttas, such as MN 9 (128 times), MN 10 (133 times), MN 118 (8 times), SN 12.28 (23 times), AN 3.121 (25 times), etc.
It use in MN 118 is interesting because it is only restricted to the most basic forms of knowing in steps 1 & 2. Then MN 118 uses ’ paṭisaṁvedī’ (‘feels’; ‘experiences’) for steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 and ‘ānupassī’ (‘closely observing’) for steps 13, 14, 15 & 16.
I think the use of the word “awareness” is too general & too vague above. Personally, I cannot understand what the speaker is attempting to say about “awareness”. To me, it gets more confusing when it is said knowing is “intentional” & “takes effort”. In fact, when reading the sutta examples I offered, “knowing/pajanati” seems to include “mental noting” because it seems used in relation to more fleeting phenomena. For example, in MN 118, pajanati is used to directly know or note the length of each in-breath & each out-breath. In MN 9 & SN 12.28, it is used to directly know or note each discrete arising & cessation of each condition of dependent origination. Similarly, while the sutta is very general, the same principle seems to be apply to MN 10, where pajanati is used in relation to phenomena that are arising & disappearing.
Where as in MN 118, the words ’ paṭisaṁvedī’ (‘feels’; ‘experiences’) & ‘ānupassī’ (‘closely observes’) are used for more lengthy & continuous experiencing. For example, ‘pajanati’ in steps 1 & 2 applies to merely one breath moment. But ’ paṭisaṁvedī’ used in steps 3 & 4 refers to experiencing processes that continue over a lengthy prolonged period of time.
In summary, my impression is ‘pajanati’ is used for more discrete or fleeting moments/instances of knowing and, while not necessarily verbal, it very close to ‘noting’ or ‘acknowledging’. 
I try to regard ‘names’ as mere conventions therefore, assuming your notes are accurate, the sort of jumbled concepts in the narrative sounds like it might possibly be Joseph Goldstein or Hillside Hermitage’s Ajahn Nyanamoli. 
1 Like
Snowbird, In DN 22, it says:
And how does a mendicant meditate observing an aspect of feelings?
It’s when a mendicant who feels a pleasant feeling knows: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling.’
When they feel a painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a painful feeling.’
When they feel a neutral feeling, they know: ‘I feel a neutral feeling.’
When they feel a material pleasant feeling, they know: ‘I feel a material pleasant feeling.’
When they feel a spiritual pleasant feeling, they know: ‘I feel a spiritual pleasant feeling.’
When they feel a material painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a material painful feeling.’
When they feel a spiritual painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a spiritual painful feeling.’
When they feel a material neutral feeling, they know: ‘I feel a material neutral feeling.’
When they feel a spiritual neutral feeling, they know: ‘I feel a spiritual neutral feeling.’
This is what the teacher was talking about and about which I want to learn more.
2 Likes
Hi Carl, I didn’t base my answer off an occurrence of pajānāti, but that of qualities that can be practically discerned and contemplated.
Thanks for your stellar work as usual.
Yes, a good example of this kind of (directly) knowing.
Great question and inquiry.
I completely understand why you don’t want to reveal the name of the speaker. I’d be curious to know if there are Pali/Sanskrit terms they have in mind that they are translating as “awareness” and “knowing.” That might help to figure it out.
Although, even in (untranslated) English, it’s difficult to know what is meant by those terms.
Anyhow, this (“When they feel a painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a painful feeling.’” etc.) to me sounds very close to what researchers and meditators refer to as “meta-awareness.” You can find a lot of info about that.
1 Like
Julia, Thank you for your reply. I think for mindfulness this person used “sati” and for knowing they used “pajanati”. I will look up meta-awareness. This is helpful. Thank you!
Patricia
It is true that it is difficult to map some words between two languages.
This happens between modern languages as well.
2 Likes
CurlyCarl, thank you so much! I think you hit the nail on the head. I will use your references to read some more about pajanati and about patisamvedi and anupassi. Thank you so much. 
1 Like
Thank you Paul for pointing this out!
1 Like
I like your use of geometry to share this with me Joseph. Thank you for your considerate and beautiful explanation!
1 Like
Interesting.
I know John Yates (a Theravada teacher) and John Dunne (a Tibetan scholar and teacher who draws from the Abhidharma tradition) both differentiate meta-awareness from “sati.” But I’m not sure what term(s) they translate the English “meta-awareness” from. Though meta-awareness is central to both of their understandings of practice.
I do know that meta-awareness is more broad than attention as we normally think of it. With meta-awareness, you are aware of more than just the object of your attention (such as your breath, a candle flame, etc.)… If that helps at all.
I wish you luck in your inquiry!
Pajānāti ‘fully know’ is closely relevant to both terms, jānāti ‘know’ and passati ‘see’ in SN/SA suttas. It is about knowing and seeing ‘things as they really are’ yathabhūtaṃ, essentially for the cessation of dukkha. There are in the SN/SA suttas altogether ‘seven’ things that one has to know (pp. 34, 36), and ‘two formulations’ that one has to see (pp. 53-4) for ending of dukkha; e.g.:
Pages 34-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (187.5 KB)
Pages 52-4 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (226.0 KB)
I was googling “ways of knowing” and read the following article. It was very much above my skill level but I stuck with it for the entire 2 pages (good job, Patricia!). I think I did get something out of so I’m glad I let a lot of the big words wash over me. But wondering if anyone else has read this? Context of Ways of Knowing, Bare Perception — Study Buddhism
Surprised no one mentioned Ven Sujato’s course as yet- he explores this topic in depth. 
2 Likes
In page 54, it presents SN 22.95 states that the five aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asāraka). This insight agrees completely the Mahayana’s Heart Sutra teaching on seeing the five aggregates are simply empty. Heart Sutra - Wikipedia
Similar words are also found in SN35.197 (= SA 1172). The sutta states that the six internal sense spheres are seen as just void (rittaka), just vain (tucchaka), just empty (suññaka).
Pages 92-3 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (140.7 KB)
This underscores that I need to learn more about the aggregates. Thank you.