Such as strange word this is. It is used probably multiple times every day by most English speaking humans, with nary a thought given to its implications. To "understand" something is to not only gain knowledge of something, but to put the knowledge into its proper context. One can be told that something is true, but if one does not understand why it is true, and the implications of its truth, one has knowledge but not understanding.
But let's think about this word for a second. It implies something very peculiar: that one is standing under what is "understood"! How very interesting. Does this bias a person who learns of something to always view themselves as beneath what is learned, always receiving from something considered above themselves what is understood? Why not "overstanding"?
Could it be that the very idea of understanding carries with it a cultural bias? Could it be that the idea of understanding reinforces a sort of inferiority complex when it comes to learning of things, where one must humble himself in order to learn the proper context of something? If one "understands" something, who "overstands" what is given to the person who "understands"? Are there people who "overstand", who rather than looking with upturned eyes to figure out the proper context of something, subjectively assign the proper context as it means to them, thus "standing over" the idea and assigning it meaning, rather than receiving the meaning?
It's amazing how easily humans use words without thinking of the subconscious effects they have. For most, the proper context will always be the learner being a humble person being told what something means, humbly looking up at the object of contemplation, and accepting the apparent meaning given to him.