Recently, someone asked me, “How did your mother and father deal with it when you were growing up? People tend to believe that grief shrinks over time; what really happens is that we grow around our grief.” This question made me pause and reflect—not only on my personal experiences but also on how different traditions, particularly Hinduism and Abrahamic faiths, approach suffering and grief.
Do We Shrink Our Grief or Grow Around It?
Do we truly overcome grief, or do we simply learn to live with it? Is suffering a philosophical issue, a theological mystery, or ultimately a matter of relationships? Hinduism, with its emphasis on karma and fate, offers one way of understanding suffering. Abrahamic faiths, centered on a God-oriented worldview, provide another. Yet, despite these differences, both traditions recognize the profound role that human relationships play in navigating pain and loss.
This reflection explores these perspectives, questioning whether suffering is something that shrinks with time—or if, instead, we grow around it through the bonds we share with others.
Hindus have one advantage—karma and fate. They strive to overcome challenges, but when they fail, they take refuge in fate and accept it. This mindset has helped them navigate many hardships in life. Take marriage, for example. Many marriages endure because people believe their spouse was destined for them. Even divorce does not necessarily alter one’s fate. A common saying warns: “Better to live with a known devil than to chase an unknown angel or an illusion of paradise after divorce,” as the latter often proves worse than the former.
A well-known story illustrates this mindset: A man once visited an astrologer to inquire about his future. After carefully studying the horoscope, the astrologer said, “As Saturn (Sani) enters your life, you will face ‘Sade Sati’—a seven-and-a-half-year phase of hardship. You may suffer greatly.” Anxiously, the man asked, “And what happens after that?” The astrologer smiled and replied, “By then, you will have gotten used to it, and the troubles will no longer trouble you.”
According to Hinduism, there are three major causes of suffering—Adhyatmika, Adhibhautika, and Adhidaivika. The first is caused by oneself, the second by external non-human forces, and the third by divine or fate-related factors. However, the term ‘Adi+daivika’ need not mean ‘divine’ in the theistic sense, as ‘daivika’ in Sanskrit also refers to fate. Even when considering Adhyatmika suffering, which is said to be ‘self-inflicted,’ it still involves relationships with others. No one intentionally seeks suffering for themselves; rather, it arises in interaction with the world. This brings us to the question of whether ‘grief shrinks over time’ or whether ‘we grow around our grief.’ The answer, I believe, depends on whether we view suffering as primarily a philosophical issue or a relational one.
Hinduism, centering the Atman rather than God (as in Abrahamic faiths), often approaches suffering through sociology rather than theology. However, it does not dismiss the philosophical dimension entirely. Philosophy serves the Atman but does not define it. In fact, by keeping the Atman at the center, Hindu thought attempts to understand its nature through its relationship with both God and the world. These three entities—Atman, Brahman, and Jagat—form a dynamic triangle, each depending on the others. Depending on one’s perspective, any of the three can be placed at the foundation. For a Bhakta, God is the base supporting the rest; for a Jnani, the Atman is central.
Although Abrahamic faiths are more God-centric in their theology, they too incorporate sociological perspectives in addressing suffering and pain. Their theology of ‘predestination’ or ‘the will of God’ does not negate the necessity of human relationships in navigating suffering. In fact, their scriptures explicitly prioritize relational ethics as fundamental to divine acceptance. While Hinduism often emphasizes karma and detachment, Abrahamic faiths emphasize active engagement—caring for others as a divine imperative rather than just a moral choice.
For instance, Mukti Veda (Bible) states: “Unless you forgive others, God will not forgive you” (Matthew 6:14-15). In the prayer taught by Muktinath (Christ), He instructed His disciples: “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us” (Matthew 6:12). Later, His disciple Sevanand [Paul] exhorted: “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). Another disciple, John, wrote: “Whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 John 4:20). Furthermore, of the Ten Commandments, six are human-centric, emphasizing interpersonal relationships over direct theological concerns.
Thus, the question of whether grief shrinks over time or whether we grow around our grief depends on whether we view suffering primarily as a relational issue or a philosophical one. Hinduism, while offering philosophical answers, does not deny the reality that suffering is mostly relational. Even Advaita Vedanta, which sees suffering as maya, does not reduce human experience to mere illusion in any simplistic sense. While Atman remains untouched by suffering as Sat-Chit-Ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss), human life still unfolds within karma and relationships, making suffering an undeniable reality at the empirical level.
Grief is not an independent entity that shrinks on its own or passively allows us to grow around it. Rather, it diminishes when someone empathizes with us, listens, and shares in our sorrow. While grief may not disappear entirely, such shared understanding lightens its weight. Conversely, when there is no one to offer empathy, its burden only deepens. The influence of any emotion—whether in humans or even in animals, which Gandhi referred to as “sub-human”1 rather than “non-human”—is shaped by our relationships with others, not by the emotion itself.
Conclusion: The Role of Relationships in Suffering
In the end, even this very reflection is shaped by our dialogue and relationships rather than a mere monologue of my thoughts. Philosophy itself requires interaction, just as love needs another to be fully experienced; even a recluse derives his identity from the society around him. Our existence as humans is defined by relationships, and it is within these relationships that we ultimately understand suffering, resilience, and meaning.
Thus, beyond theological and philosophical frameworks, the most profound response to suffering—whether shrinking or growing around it—is not found in abstract ideas, but in the depth of our relationships.
Ashram, 21-3-2025
Notes
1 1 And my philosophy, my religion teaches me that brotherhood is not confined merely to the human species; that is, if we really have imbibed the spirit of brotherhood, it extends to the
lower animals. In one of the magazines issued in England by those great philanthropic societies 30 or 35 years ago, I remember having read some beautiful verses. I think the title of those verses was My Brother Ox. In them the writer beautifully described how on a man who loved his fellow men it was obligatory to love his fellow-animals also, taking the word animals to mean the sub-human species. The thought struck me most forcibly.— SPEECH AT MEETING OF CHRISTIANS, Calcutta, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 15-8-1925, CWMG, Vol. 28, p. 20
Leave a Reply