Introduction

Purpose of this Article

It is quite clear that the term ‘monotheism’ no longer and never has accurately described Sikhi. We are in a dire need of a redefinition in Western spaces, which I believe requires us to look into existing Western terms which already have some standing not only in academic spaces, but the public’s mind too. One of these terms is ‘deism’.

Fairly recently, the terms ‘pantheism’ (and subsequently ‘panentheism’) have made its way into Sikh spaces and parchar in English, and while I feel that this is a good thing, there are certain aspects of Sikhi which may be neglected when solely using this term – of course, Sikhi doesn’t have a one-to-one relationship with any Western term, and perhaps one can debate that no Western term can ever truly describe even an iota of Sikhi, though, for us to introduce Sikhi into the West without morphing it into an Abrahamic creed – something which it, quite clearly, is not – we will have to use terms that already exist.

I will preface this article by saying that I am no expert on deism, and my research is undoubtedly shallow for something as deep and complex as this philosophy. Not only is my knowledge on deism weak, but so is my knowledge on Gurmat – I rely on translations when I read certain texts, and I lack the personal spiritual insight and years of deep study of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji that one requires for a solid understanding of the complex philosophy of Sikhi.

What I seek to achieve by writing and sharing this is quite simply to start conversations on the discussion on deism and the overarching discussion on Western terminology. I’m hoping that this can perhaps inspire people with a greater potential than myself to begin exploring the beauty that is Sikhi and its countless intricacies.

Deism

A Short Introduction

Deism was never truly a religion or had a large organisation and following alike religion. Instead, it is a philosophical thought, one that has been evolving and morphing amongst its small communities and individuals.

It first originated as a deviation from traditional Christian thought and the dominative influence of the Church, which led to its denouncement as a heretical ideology. Towards the end of the 17th century, and throughout the Age of Enlightenment that followed, deism began to take on as an ideology correspondent to the discoveries being made and the scientific reasoning that was being developed. By the 1730s, its status as a recognisable movement began to decline, and the influence of materialism and naturalism began to take its place.

While this tumultuous journey and the lack of a modern presence implies that deism is long gone, this is not the case. Deist communities and the term ‘deism’ have indeed faltered, but the ideology itself remains in the minds of many. The majority of pantheists and panentheists naturally assume a deistic position on the role of God to its manifested creation.

The core, or perhaps even sole belief of deism, is that revelation is not a means of gaining knowledge on the divine. For example, Prophets are not sent by God, and texts such as the Bible and Quran are not ‘divinely revealed’. Divine knowledge, instead, is embedded within humans, and can be known or realised through reason. As deism has evolved, it has gained additional beliefs, such as the idea that God does not interact with the world.

The Watchmaker

There exists an analogy which proclaims that the universe (or life in some cases) is like a complex watch, and has been designed by God. There are many debates and refutations of this argument as a proof of the existence of God, and overall it no longer has use as an argument – unless you are a creationist.

The key part of this analogy in relation to our subject is that the watchmaker has stepped back: the watch is designed, put forth and started, and is no longer touched onward. While the watchmaker can slightly adjust the time, or to tinker around while it runs, the watch will continue to run as governed by ‘laws’ which exist to keep the watch going.

To put it in a more modern context: perhaps, Akaal is similar to a programmer, and has written this program (or, I suppose, ‘dreamt’ it). The functions and the laws of physics, the logical flow of both code and the universe, and perhaps even the lack of a true randomness seem to reflect a parallel between the role of a coder and the role of a deistic God.

Though the analogy works well to describe the common idea of a deist God, many deists do not necessarily agree with this – historically, deists would assume a personal, Abrahamic God, and many deists today believe in an Abrahamic God rather than a pantheist or panentheist one. I’d like to highlight this as the term deism is very loose, and while it works better with some models of God than others, it does not tie itself to a specific model i.e. an Abrahamic God.

Divine Providence and Miracles

Divine providence is the guidance of God. In various theological ideologies, the actual extent of this differs – some believe that things occur as its will, some believe that this God actively guides events, and some consider divine providence to be the cooperation of God with its subjects.

Deism in itself is not necessarily contradictory to the idea of divine providence – remember, while deists may also dismiss miracles and an idea of an interactive God, this does not conflict with the sole idea behind deism, which is simply that revelation is not a means of gaining divine knowledge (or is at the very least inferior to reason and logical deduction). The modern deist position however largely assigns a minimal role to God, whereby interaction is either non-existent or simply very rare.

Historically, the status of miracle within deist thought was contested. Some believed that miracle was as valid as other true phenomenons, as an extension of divine providence, whereas others thought it to be something to be dropped alongside the Bible and other “divinely revealed” texts. In modern deism, and at the very least since the 18th century, miracles have been fully rejected, due to the scientific discoveries and rethinking of natural phenomenons.

Miracles are a deviation from the rules decreed for the Universe, and so, as some deists say, it would be insulting to say that God or a representative has had to deviate from its own rules to prove itself for some people. However, some deists reluctantly do accept miracle as a possibility simply due to seeing God as all-powerful.

Pandeism

We can see that deism has largely been considered in the context of the Abrahamic God, and many deist refutations of traditional theism is focused on refuting the Church and its dogma. As stated earlier, modern pantheists and panentheists largely assume deism or at the very least some aspects. An attempt to name this combination is pandeism (or panendeism by some, an even rarer term).

Pandeism describes a God that has manifested this universe, and then has either become the universe, or ceases to exist separately to it. Panendeism is essentially the same but states that this God has not been limited to this Universe and still exists ‘separately’ in some regard (in that, the Universe is not one-to-one with God, and that some aspect of God still exists which cannot be found within the Universe).

This ideology has largely been confined to the internet and has not been explored as other established ideologies such as deism, pantheism and panentheism have – at least, not in a modern Western context. Panendeists do however state that the ideology is found within Advaita Vedanta, Greek philosophy of the Monad, and Spinoza’s Philosophy.

Supporting Arguments for Sikhi as ‘Deism’

Hukum – Everything is preordained

A core concept present in Sikhi is hukum – the idea that all events are preordained by Akaal. It is not just limited to events that may be considered ‘prophetic’ or of theological significance – it includes everything, even the most minute events such as individual movements of particles.

A question arises here as to how involved Akaal is in each movement: is it more so that, Akaal individually moves everything at every instance with a conscious thought behind it, or is it more so that Akaal has planned every event and events happen as part of that plan? If it is the latter, then we can say that this idea of hukum does appear to have deistic qualities.

Ultimately though, it can be argued that this question is meaningless. We understand as per definitions of Akaal that, well, it is Akaal – timeless, and unbound. I can think of an analogy to explain the situation at hand:

Imagine a writer having each page of his book laid out in front of him at once, as if the book was disassembled. This writer will write and create his book – every page will be filled out with an event. They can see everything – every event, at any point in the book. Now let’s add a reader – they get the book bound, and they’ll only read it word by word, line by line. Even as the reader goes through the book as time goes on, the writer can still see (or have full knowledge of) what’s happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

To use the common metaphors in Gurbani, we know that the ‘everflowing pen’ of Akaal and the ‘destinies already written on their foreheads’ are not contradictory. The everflowing pen of Akaal simply is writing out something that is already planned, that is already predetermined. Every movement of this divine pen was known already by Akaal. Clearly – this is deistic.

Hukum – Morality & Dharma

As deism is so varied in additional ideology, it is quite hard to pin down a specific tenent of deism to morality and such things. Classical deists would naturally assume moral law exists, such as Thomas Paine in his book the ‘Age of Reason’:

As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in every man’s conscience.

And yet, I do think that modern deists would largely disagree with this statement. Though I’ve not found a specific text or book on morality from a modern deist perspective, by browsing deist forums and online communities I’ve largely found that the consensus now is that morality is completely subjective and there does not exist some form of ‘moral law’.

Due to this, it is quite hard to compare deism and Sikhi on the topic of morality. I managed to find a paragraph on morality from this wiki page, though I do understand that this is no definitive deist position, and is simply a proposition. Regardless, here’s the excerpt:

In the sphere of morality, Deists conceive of God as the supreme authority of the moral world. Many Deists say that just as God provided the laws governing the physical universe, God also set in place the moral order. In this way, he serves as the judge of all moral beings within the cosmos, but he does not necessarily become involved in the enforcement of the law. Instead, humans are punished and rewarded as a function of their own observance of the natural moral laws. Consequently, Deism places emphasis on the requirement of a virtuous life amidst the freedom of human choices. Disobedience to God’s laws will naturally result in negative consequences for the moral being, thus God’s personal intervention is not required. It is human reason that replaces a personal relationship with God, since “salvation” in the Deist philosophy is assured for those who live a moral life based upon knowledge of the laws created by God, including what constitutes good and what constitutes evil.

This, I believe, perfectly corresponds to Dharma, and the ‘enforcer’, Dharamraj. Whether you consider Dharamraj to be a being that operates on people’s karma and dharma, or whether you view it as a metaphorical personalisation of dharma itself, the view is still valid. Akaal has created dharma as a moral order, of which karma is a part of. The enforcer of this is either Dharamraj or the system itself (in that, there is no actually being that operates, but it’s simply how the world works). Here’s a pangti from Ang 555 which explicitly states Dharamraj is a creation of Akaal:

ਧਰਮ ਰਾਇ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਕੀਆ ਹਰਿ ਜਨ ਸੇਵਕ ਨੇੜਿ ਨ ਆਵੈ ॥

The Righteous Judge of Dharma is a creation of the Lord; he does not approach the humble servant of the Lord.

Going back to the original excerpt, have another read of this sentence:

Instead, humans are punished and rewarded as a function of their own observance of the natural moral laws.

This, to me, is certainly agreeable with Gurmat. Here is a pangti I found that reflects this viewpoint (in the context of following Gurmat and receieving the benefits):

ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਧਰਤੀ ਧਰਮ ਹੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਵਿਚਿ ਜੇਹਾ ਕੋ ਬੀਜੇ ਤੇਹਾ ਫਲੁ ਪਾਏ ॥

The True Guru is the field of Dharma; as one plants the seeds there, so are the fruits obtained.

Have a read of the full shabad on this topic by Guru Ram Dass Ji on Ang 302.

I find that it is an absolutely perfect shabad in explaining not only the concept of dharma and karma, but also other important philosophical concepts. We can see the similarities in various pangtis here to the common saying of “you reap what you sow”.

It should be clear that Akaal does not need to intervene every single time a “sin” occurs, because this is simply negative karma, and is thus simply a part of the system. There are sakhis of Akaal intervening in special scenarios, such as saving Bhagats from ‘evil’ – but this is the exception, not the rule, if we are to take the sakhis as a historical occurrence. I’d also like to note that in these scenarios, Akaal does not intervene due to the “sin”, but rather to save their Bhagats – remember, these Bhagats do not necessarily have good karma or bad karma; they are completely out of the system. Once one becomes mukt, their karma is discarded.

To go further in depth on morality, it seems to be that it holds a sense of subjectivity even in Sikh opinion. Parsnath Avtar, a chapter within Dasam Granth, describes the battle between Bibek and Abibek – truth/rightfulness and the ignorance of it. Have a read of a short analysis of the text here. Perhaps even the modern deist opinion on subjective morality may still be compatible with the Sikh opinion.

Narsingh & the Avtaras – the Agents of Akaal

Recited every day by Amritdhari Sikhs are these two lines, as part of Rehras Sahib:

ਹਰਿ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਭਗਤ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਪੈਜ ਰਖਦਾ ਆਇਆ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਜੇ ॥

In each and every age, He creates His devotees and preserves their honor, O Lord King. ਹਰਣਾਖਸੁ ਦੁਸਟੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਹਲਾਦੁ ਤਰਾਇਆ ॥

The Lord killed the wicked Harnaakhash, and saved Prahlaad.

We understand that it was Akaal that killed Harnaakash (Hiranyakashipu), and yet, in the traditional Hindu story, it is Vishnu’s avtar, Narsingh, that kills Harnaakash. I believe it is quite clear that in the Sikh view, Vishnu is not Akaal, certainly not in the sense that they are completely one and the same.

One may simply decide then that Narsingh was in fact an avtar of Akaal, and not Vishnu – similar to how the Gurus are one and the same with Akaal. And yet, Guru Gobind Singh ji lists Narsingh as one of the 24 avtars of Vishnu, in the text Chaubis Avtar.

Clearly this poses a problem – does this mean Narsingh is Vishnu? Or is Narsingh Akaal? Or perhaps, are Vishnu and Akaal one and the same? Guru Gobind Singh Ji answers this question for us in the beginning of Chaubis Avtar:

ਆਪਨ ਰਹਤ ਨਿਰਾਲਮ ਜਗ ਤੇ ॥

He Himself remains detached from the world, ਜਾਨ ਲਏ ਜਾ ਨਾਮੈ ਤਬ ਤੇ ॥੫॥

I know this fact from the very beginning (ancient times).5. ਆਪ ਰਚੇ ਆਪੇ ਕਲ ਘਾਏ ॥

He creates Himself and destroys Himself ਅਵਰਨ ਕੇ ਦੇ ਮੂੰਡਿ ਹਤਾਏ ॥

But He imposes the responsibility on the head of others ਆਪ ਨਿਰਾਲਮ ਰਹਾ ਨ ਪਾਯਾ ॥

He Himself remains detached and Beyond Everything ਤਾ ਤੇ ਨਾਮ ਬਿਅੰਤ ਕਹਾਯਾ ॥੬॥

Therefore, He is called ‘Infinite’.6.

It is quite clear that Akaal remains detached from this world, so how can he come to save Bhagat Prahlad in the form of Narsingh? This is where the 4th pangti in the excerpt explains everything – Akaal acts in the form of agents, and commands others as according to his divine play. This idea does not just extend to Vishnu and his Avtars, but to every human, animal, and movement – it is all hukum, and all according to Akaal – but, while this is happening, Akaal remains detached and beyond this world. This idea, to me, is explicitly deistic, and suggests that Akaal is alike a deistic God that acts not directly, but indirectly through agents.

To those that see Dharamraj as an individual being, we lead to the same conclusion: Akaal does not directly get involved with the dharma and karma of beings, but rather passes this responsibility to others, who are also answerable to Akaal.

Reason leading to Mukti

As we know, deism rejects divine revelation in favour of reason and logic as a means to salvation. The most comparable Dharmic philosophy to this would be the Sankhya darshana, which asserts that the only valid means of knowledge (pramana) is through perception, inference, and reliable sources (though this may conflict with deism as the Sankhya darshana accepts the Vedas as a reliable source for information – something I feel that deists would largely reject).

While we can certainly say that mukti can be gained through Naam Simran, we must ask ourselves the question; can it be gained through reason and logic? I think there are varying answers to this. Here is what Bhai Gurdas Ji writes in his Vaaran on the Sankhya darshana, and their method of attaining mukti:

ਗਿਆਨੁ ਮਤੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਨ ਕਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਚੁਕਾਈ।

Analytical wisdom creates the supreme delight and the illusions of birth and death come to an end. ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਈ ॥੧੨॥

The Guru-oriented (gurmukh) get merged in the real self.

Have a read of the full chapter here. It is quite clear that there is a distinction between simple reading and analytical wisdom. The chapter on Sankhya is largely positive or at the very least non-negative, as compared to some of the other chapters on the remaining 5 darshanas.

Opposing Arguments to Sikhi as ‘Deism’

Sakhis – Miracles

While the basic definition of deism does not necessarily go against the idea of miracles, it is quite clear that modern deists do not allow for the existence of miracles. Based on this, it may be quite troubling to define Sikhi as Deistic – does this mean that the countless miracles the Guru has performed, the siddhis they speak of, and the power of Sants is untrue?

I think at this point, we need to consider the various Sikh positions on these things. The traditional Sikh viewpoint, and one held by all sampardaic groups of Sikhi, do assert that siddhis are real and held by Yogis, that the supernatural sakhis did happen, and that even modern Sants have supernatural powers. In contrast, some Sikhs view all supernatural things such as siddhis and miracles as false, and see sakhis for their metaphorical value or simply disregard them.

If one follows the latter viewpoint, then there is no problem here. However, if you follow the viewpoint that all of the supernatural elements described by the Gurus and by Sikhs are completely real, then you have to take into consideration the fact that modern deism will contrast with this. I will however input that this does not necessarily mean that Sikhi cannot be described as deistic – the modern deistic idea that supernatural elements are unreal is, of course, modern; and we do know that the majority of historical deists did not contest the existence of miracles (though of course, this was before the various scientific discoveries which have led people to conclude that supernatural things aren’t real).

Sakhis – Divine Providence

There are many sakhis – both historical and modern – wherein people are actually given mukti by the Guru or the various Sants. These happen regardless of the individual’s avastha, which raises the question: is brahmgiaan ‘divinely revealed’?

If it can be divinely revealed, then we’ve come to a stop here – the core definition of deism, where there exists no revelation, no divine revealment, cannot be applied to Sikhi. If we got a little deeper, it may still be possible to work around this. Let’s use the sakhi of Sant Baba Mani Singh Ji giving mukti to a doe. In the story, a doe had come to Sant Ji and they had hugged – the doe soon died in Sant Ji’s arms. Later on, Sant Ji had said that this was his mother in a previous life, and that he had come to Kenya (the location of the sakhi) solely to give her mukti.

As we know, a human is the highest form of life gained with karma, as it is the easiest to receive mukti in. However, it is not the only lifeform which can receive mukti – even animals can do this. I give the example of Gajinder, the elephant, which is a Bhagat referenced in many pangtis within Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. (Note that this Bhagat is also referenced in the Bhagavata Purana, as Gajendra).

However, we cannot simply assume this doe’s karma was low – for all we know, the doe was already at a high enough avastha to receive mukti (and Sant Ji ‘granting’ mukti was merely letting the doe end the cycle of life and death). And again, once we view everything as hukum, the question of this becomes fairly pointless: it does not matter whether brahmgiaan was divinely revealed or gained through Naam Simran, as it is all part of the divine play and preordained (in the grand scheme of things).

I’d also like to talk about a sakhi of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, wherein Guru Ji spent 3 days in a river. I won’t recount the whole story; a simplistic reading of the story can be found here. In the sakhi, Guru Ji is said to have met and merged with Akaal in the river.

In relation to deism, I feel this story can be problematic. Questions may arise on how Guru Nanak Dev Ji gained this brahmgiaan: did Akaal meet and divinely reveal it to the Guru? Does this mean that, before this ‘enlightenment’, the Guru was just a normal man? Was this event alike a ceremony, whereby the Guru was already one with Akaal? Or perhaps, the story is a metaphorical description of what mukti is?

I think there are many interpretations of this sakhi, some of which can be compatible with deism, and some not. It truly does depend on how you view sakhis.

I understand that many Sikhs may not believe in any of these sakhis, and will either cast some doubt on them or outright reject them, which is fair. I still however wanted to raise this argument as it has traditionally been accepted as part of sampardaic Sikhi.

Dusht Daman’s Conversation

There is a beautiful composition in Bachittar Natak wherein Guru Gobind Singh Ji narrates his previous life as a rishi in Hemkunt Sahib. In the sakhi, Dusht Daman Ji meditates upon Mahakaal Kalika, and becomes one with the divine. Dusht Daman is then told by Akaal that he must reincarnate and revitalise dharma in Kaljug. Akaal then describes the various deities that were created to rule the universe (which in itself, is a fairly deistic idea). A pangti is given, which seems to reflect deism:

ਕਾਲ ਨ ਸਕਤ ਬਚਾਇ ਕੈ ਫੋਕਟ ਧਰਮ ਨਿਦਾਨ ॥੪੭॥

Mere reading cannot save one from death. Therefore, such works are vain and do not help at the time of death.47.

While this is all well and good, there seems to be a dualistic problem with the sakhi: how is Akaal speaking to Dusht Daman? There are many questions here, but I want to just focus on the question of deism here: we have established earlier, in Chaubis Avtar specifically, that Akaal does not interfere with the world. However, we have here a story given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji which shows Akaal specifically speaking. Does this mean that there is a contradiction?

A possible solution is that this conversation was not truly a conversation between two people. I see it more so as Dusht Daman understanding hukum, rather than being told it. We know that Dusht Daman had become one with Akaal and would have clearly been in touch with what Akaal wanted (as they were one and the same). Perhaps Guru Gobind Singh Ji is explaining his mission from a dualist position as a poetical device, or perhaps to explain the situation more clearly to the reader.

I’d also like to mention the metaphorical position on this story. I personally am quite hesitant to leap to a metaphorical conclusion, but I do believe it has some validity in this story. This view is sees this story as a metaphor for the union of Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s parents – Guru Teg Bahadur Ji and Mata Gujri Ji – and subsequently his creation. The reference to his parents, and the statement that he was ‘born’ into Kaljug, does seem to suggest ideas of birth, creation, and his coming into Kaljug from the womb of Mata Gujri. Though metaphorical positions on sakhis are controversial, I did want to highlight it as a possibility for this specific sakhi.

Mukti

Since deism arose from Abrahamic faiths and has stayed close to its root over the time of its development, the idea of mukti is absent from deism. Instead, deists usually take two positions on the afterlife or a form of salvation. Historically, the default position is the standard Abrahamic idea of a heaven and salvation – the only difference being that salvation is brought by reason, and not through the Bible or ritualism. The other position is a more modern one, which seems to be: ‘I don’t know’. As the divine does not interact with the world, and reason leads to knowledge of divine, there is not enough to decisively posit an afterlife or salvation of any form.

Thus, it is fairly hard to fit mukti – a Dharmic concept – into an Abrahamic model. While this does not necessarily mean Sikhi cannot be described as Deistic or deism, it does highlight the incompatibility of Sikhi with not just deism, but the majority of Western terminology and philosophical positions.

Let’s return to the Sankhya darshana, which I feel may be the closest Dharmic counterpart to deism. While I may have raised the point that reason and logic could lead to mukti, the large majority of people – myself included – will feel that this may not be according to Gurmat. We know that bhagti and love is absolutely key to mukti, and one cannot achieve mukti without having love for the divine. I myself am not knowledgeable on the Sankhya darshana, and perhaps bhagti is also a key component, but regardless, it’s certain that reason and logic alone cannot lead to mukti.

Gurbani

Perhaps one of the most conflicting elements of Sikhi to deism is the idea of Gurbani being divine. As we know from the vehement rejection of the Bible as a divine work, it is certain that deists would equally reject Gurbani as being divine or even divinely inspired.

The first question is to ask ourselves: is Gurbani divine? Bhai Nand Lal Ji, a prominent Sikh writer, says:

ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਮੋ ਭੇਦ ਨ ਕਾਈ॥

See no difference between Guru’s Physical form and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

This is not the only direct historical statement on Guru Granth Sahib Ji that asserts its divinity. Bhai Daya Singh Ji, Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji, and Giani Gian Singh Ji write the same in their own texts. While there do exist Sikhs nowadays that reject Gurbani as divine, and see it as normal text or simply inspired works, it is very clear that traditional Sikhi view Gurbani as the Guru.

Though this is a very clear clash between deist opinion and Sikh opinion, I do think that we can view this from another angle. As we know, deism had no concept of mukti – humans could never become divine; they could only be saved and sent to an afterlife or cease existence all together. The reason why we view Gurbani as divine is because we view the Guru and the Bhagats as one and the same with Akaal. While Akaal is detached, beings can realise Akaal from within, and thus become at one – this concept is not within deism. Ultimately, our problem here stems from how the Dharmic view on divinity is largely different to the Abrahamic view on divinity. To the Abrahamic faiths, humans can only attain divinity if they are given a mission by God himself.

Conclusion

The task of simply assigning a term to Sikhi is not as simple as it seems. Where one’s interpretation of Sikhi may be fully describable as Deist, another’s may not – and here lies our problem.

The modern connotation of deism is that of a detached God, and the idea that there exists no divine revelation seems to have been sidelined. Going forward, I see the best option as stating that ‘Sikhi has a deistic God’, rather than stating Sikhi itself is deist or deistic. The fact that deism’s core belief is on divine revelation, and not the detachment of God, does lead me towards using the term ‘deism’ with caution so as to not push forward the idea that there is no divinity within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Regardless, alongside the terms ‘pantheism/panentheism’, I do think that ‘deism’ has its place within Sikhi. It’s certainly time that the term ‘monotheism’ is dropped in favour of terms that are more specific and philosophically coherent in nature.

A term which I believe may be of more interest is ‘pandeism’. Since deism is so intertwined with Abrahamic philosophy, it may be of more suitability to consider a form of deism which is explicitly in favour of a pantheist/panentheist God, something much closer to our own.

Hopefully, this article may raise conversation on deism and new discussions to ponder over. There existed a time when Nirmala scholars would have discourse and debate over various aspects of Sikh philosophy, and it seems now that this has largely died. While I say this, I do see small pockets of Sikh spaces on the Internet exploring philosophy from new angles, and with the benefit of having swathes of information at hand. To redefine Sikhi in the West is no simple task, and it requires the new generation to push forward the changes necessary to see a revival of the Sikh philosophical traditions.

ਗੁਰਬਰਅਕਾਲ