Hinduism: My Questions

[Jassa]

The Hindu faith is one which I have not been able to fully assimilate. I realised that it is extremely composite, has many varied schools of thought, and other aspects. My curiosity for Hinduism sparked after researching Sikhism where I read that they were both particularly similar. For those of you interested, I am a former Catholic, now "seeking" a new faith.

As my personal research has been a disaster, I thought I'd have better luck with the Hindu brothers and sisters on the board - who could perhaps explain the basics: Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate? What is your view on God and where do the deities come into it, are they considered God incarnate?

I have a lot more questions but for now I think that's enough!

 

[MeeM]

I am also interested to know the history and origin of Hinduism.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Researching Sikhism where I read that they were both particularly similar.

Some consider Sikhism to be [originally] a branch of Hinduism; including Sanatana Sikhs. I favor this view. Schisms have run deep here though.

Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate?

Difficult question.

I will pick out three main trends {of memetic inheritance, if you will...] which run through and compose Hinduism's varieties.

1. Vedic brahminical tradition - brought forth by the priestly caste and codified in the Vedic schools of thought - śakhas, each oriented around particular recensions of a particular veda - the fourth veda coming quite late. Main feature: yajna (esoteric sacrifice)
2. Animistic/shamanistic ritualism and internal alchemy codified in more modern times in the tantras/agamas, but likely predating the Vedas Main features: adorative worship, often nondual; internal alchemy
3. Shramana: self-reliant tapas & brahmachari. Main feature: yoga.

Both #2 and #3 exist somewhat outside the orthodox social structure but have had tremendous influence, becoming the norm in diluted form, admixed with #1.

We can find all 3 of these trends in virtually any of Hinduism’s many splendored branches.

We cannot date #2 or #3 with any certainty, save to hazard from archaeological evidence that solitary meditating God(desse)s are depicted over 5,000 years ago. The Vedas are perhaps 500 years thereafter - but we can’t really date them either, as they were oral long before being recorded.

The Vedas came from the Ṛṣis. Ṛṣis are ancient sages who’d achieved knowledge of God and sought to not only pass on their knowledge but organize Indic society around this knowledge; the result was Vedic Brahmanism.

In Abrahamic faiths it is common to find such ideas that the scripture is the perfect, inerrant word of God, and authored thereby. Likewise, the Vedas are regarded as Apauresheya - without human authorship. As with the Christian idea of Logos, the Vedas are held as existent before manifestation of the world.

But here the Vedas go a step further: the Vedas are not only coexistent with reality, they are in fact the parent of reality; the Vedas are records of the invocations by which reality was originally made manifest, and as such, wields enormous influence over that reality.

What is your view on God and where do the deities come into it, are they considered God incarnate?

I will speak only for myself; my views are a mix of advaita and paradvaita. Paradvaita (Trika) is intensely concerned with nondual deity worship.

Everything is God.
God is more than everything and everyone.
God is both manifest and unmanifest, formed and formless, subject to change and imperishable, and is not limited by any dichotomizing mode of awareness, not even to ontological categories like ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’
Each being is God in totality.
Each being is composed of every other being.
We are all one.
There is a smooth continuum of manifestation from spirit/consciousness to matter.
All provisionally inert material in lower-dimensional reality is in fact profoundly aware spirit.
Perceiving is being when performed in God-consciousness; whatever one ‘sees,’ one is. Rather, one sees ‘it’ by virtue of being ‘it.’
The correct attitude to cultivate is one of absolute adoration, reverence and worship to all apparently limited structures of relativity - things and persons, as God/Self.

So what are deities? In my view, they are (amongst other things) the ferrymen between phenomenal and noumenal shores.

Deities are anthropomorphic, conscious representatives of cosmic & cognitive forces. Earth, sky, sun, moon, space, vital force, intellect, all-pervading essence, etc.

A specific deity is a particular composite which emphasizes a given characteristic, or set of characteristics. Knowledge, speech, fear, etc. - anything that can be conceptualized, and therefore made a cognitive element, can be deified.

Assemblies of deities are viewed as composing all reality, like cells in the body of God.

Each deity is equally and ‘secretly’ nirguna brahman; unmanifest brahman without attributes or, even more importantly, attribution, uncircumscribed by time, space or any mode of manifestation.

Identifying the self with the deities (who compose the ecosystem of the Self) causes this bridge from the phenomenal to the noumenal.

For example, I perceive a flame. I infer the presence of the appropriate deities composing that fire and focus my awareness as oblation to these deities. I am them, without separate subject, object or mode of knowing. Now fire is no longer a veil, an obscuration of pure awareness, it is no longer cognized as a separately existing object. A veil has become a lens.

I would say the most important characteristic of Hinduism is that God is conceived of in gendered dualities which are either brought into absolute harmony or resolved entirely.

 

[Vinayaka]

As my personal research has been a disaster, I thought I'd have better luck with the Hindu brothers and sisters on the board - who could perhaps explain the basics: Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate? What is your view on God and where do the deities come into it, are they considered God incarnate?

Welcome to these boards, and welcome to the idea of asking questions. As you said already, you know we're a varied lot. So indeed many questions will have many answers. This particular forum is overwhelmingly American convert or adoptive, and hence is very skewed in that direction, which is essentially people with Christian backgrounds like yourself. There are very few born Hindus on this site, so you won't get many traditional answers, if that's what you're looking for.

Hinduism has no founder. The Vedas are said to have been originated by God, but obviously they have been scribed by someone. The traditional view is that ancient seers through mystic visions were the scribes, and wrote what God said to write.

In Hinduism, God can be seen in a lot of different ways.
One is as original or first soul, ever creating from Himself.
Another is the substrata of existence, or consciousness that flows through form, called Sat-Chit-Ananda. So in this sense, God is all and in all, pervading everything including all the abstractions.
Yes another is the formless Cause, beyond all of this, and termed Brahman in this sense.
My personal view is that God is all 3 of the above, and most Hindus would see God as some combination of these 3.
The deities are God, and here's where you get a lot of diversity, and the various sects come into play. Some will see their deity as an aspect of God; others will see them as God, still others will have minor deities that aren't God, but either God's helpers, or God's aspects.

 

[Riverwolf]

As my personal research has been a disaster, I thought I'd have better luck with the Hindu brothers and sisters on the board - who could perhaps explain the basics: Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate?

Hinduism as we know it today is relatively young, being an amalgamation of hundreds of Indian religions. The roots of Hinduism, though, go back way farther than recorded history; it has no founder.

First, there was the Vedic religion. This is not modern Hinduism.
Then, there was the Brahmanical religion, focused on the rituals and priestly caste.
Then, and this is important, there was Buddhism, which rebelled against the contemporary religion at the time.
Then, there was Adi Shankara, who reformed the Vedic-based religion into one focused primarily on the philosophical texts, the Upanishads.
Over the next centuries, the Puranas, or mythical texts, would become more important to people.

So, that's the HEAVILY abridged history of Hinduism. But there's A LOT more.

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

People who are answering should keep in mind the OP may not be familiar with Sanskrit words.

Hinduism doesn't have a founder, this maybe hard to understand for someone from Abrahamic faiths. There are many pathways(Margas) in Hinduism, but the ultimate goal of all is liberation (Moksha). Hindus should believe this world is an illusion(Maya), where after you die according to the good deeds you did here, you'll get temporary reward in heaven(Swarga), after exhausting your good deeds you'll take birth again, this will go on endlessly until you get Moksha. Moksha is the main thing to be after in this world.

It's all complicated, can't explain everything.

 

[Maya3]

Hinduism has no founder. The Vedas are said to have been originated by God, but obviously they have been scribed by someone. The traditional view is that ancient seers through mystic visions were the scribes, and wrote what God said to write.

In Hinduism, God can be seen in a lot of different ways.
One is as original or first soul, ever creating from Himself.
Another is the substrata of existence, or consciousness that flows through form, called Sat-Chit-Ananda. So in this sense, God is all and in all, pervading everything including all the abstractions.
Yes another is the formless Cause, beyond all of this, and termed Brahman in this sense.
My persoanl view is that Gos is all 3 of the above, and most Hindus would see God as some combination of these 3.
The deities are God, and here's where you get a lot of diversity, and the various sects come into play. Some will see their deity as an aspect of God; others will see them as God, still others will have minor deities that aren't God, but either God's helpers, or God's aspects.

I really like the way you explained this, so instead of making my own comment, I'll just second what you wrote. Hope that is ok with everyone?

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

I really like the way you explained this, so instead of making my own comment, I'll just second what you wrote. Hope that is ok with everyone?

Maya

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe our faith is really simpler than many people think. The nature of the intellect is to analyze, analyze, write more stuff, think about it, write it in a different way, think about it some more, write a book, read a bunch more books, spout info, boast about it some, use overcomplicated words, blah blah blah.

But once you realise that that's just the intellect doing what the intellect does, and let it be, while watching it from a more refined sense of your actual being, it all becomes really very very simple.

Its too bad some days that the first encounter with Hinduism is a scholarly one. Some of my my friends took the 'Inroduction to Hinduism' course at a local university - very dry instructor. One visit to a Hindu temple to watch what Hindus do will probably lead to a greater understanding.

 

[Jassa]

I'd like to thank everyone for the detailed replies. I have developed a fond interest in not just Hinduism but the Eastern religions in general, and hold it in great admiration, particularly the non-dualistic concept coupled with the oneness of everything.

To Shuddhasattva: Labelling the Sikh faith as a branch of Hinduism would be improper in my view. As there are similarities, there are also differences - and I recall the Gurus stating they are neither Hindu or Muslim but of God. Thus a Sikh would argue that their faith is directly from God and not derived from elsewhere. Similarly a Muslim would argue Islam did not originate from Christianity.

Hinduism as we know it today is relatively young, being an amalgamation of hundreds of Indian religions. The roots of Hinduism, though, go back way farther than recorded history; it has no founder.

What I've perceived is the main root of Hindu Dharma; its primal source, stems from the Vedas (which purportedly originated from God), from this evolved a multitudinous exposition of other teachings, and various sects being born.

Previously I was told Hinduism includes: Atheism, Polytheism to Monotheism.

Do the dynamic, contrasting views of God and methods of worship create any conflict within the Hindu faith, for example, one denomination may assert that their path is correct and others have gone amiss, or is there a mutual understanding between everyone?

I speculate by conjecture that significant deities perhaps introduced the differences in theology which exist within Hinduism today but nevertheless if the Vedas is the bequeathal of God and contains the knowledge revealed by God, then why isn't there a major reversion to the original teachings?

Here's where I'm at loss, when it comes to the subject of deities. I've always personally believed God does not take birth or die, so accordingly, I could never accept a deity as God incarnate. Though, this does not implicate that I reject the divine status of deities.

Another thing is, the description of deities in Hinduism appear to be quite mythological whereby they perform out of the ordinary miracles and wage legendary battles against ghastly demons. Is it all real? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Maya3]

Jassa,
Welcome to the forum, you have great questions!

Do the dynamic, contrasting views of God and methods of worship create any conflict within the Hindu faith, for example, one denomination may assert that their path is correct and others have gone amiss, or is there a mutual understanding between everyone?

There is a mutual understanding that whatever lead you to God is fine. This goes for other religions too. Even if you don't agree with certain ways of looking at things, most Hindus realize that though it may not work for you, it can work very well for someone else.
That said though, there are some who gets "the only my way is the correct way" complex. But it is rare within Hinduism.

I speculate by conjecture that significant deities perhaps introduced the differences in theology which exist within Hinduism today but nevertheless if the Vedas is the bequeathal of God and contains the knowledge revealed by God, then why isn't there a major reversion to the original teachings?

I'm not sure I understand your question? Could you clarify it please?

Here's where I'm at loss, when it comes to the subject of deities. I've always personally believed God does not take birth or die, so accordingly, I could never accept a deity as God incarnate. Though, this does not implicate that I reject the divine status of deities.

It is completely fine to think that.
Hinduism is vast and there are a lot of opinions.
But I personally think that the deities are mythological and just our own way to describe what we don't understand.
For me they are powerful symbols that can be used to reach God. Like you said they represent different aspects of God. But God her/his/itself is formless.

Maya
Another thing is, the description of deities in Hinduism appear to be quite mythological whereby they perform out of the ordinary miracles and wage legendary battles against ghastly demons. Is it all real? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Jassa]

Jassa,
Welcome to the forum, you have great questions!

Thanks for the warm welcome!

There is a mutual understanding that whatever lead you to God is fine. This goes for other religions too. Even if you don't agree with certain ways of looking at things, most Hindus realize that though it may not work for you, it can work very well for someone else.
That said though, there are some who gets "the only my way is the correct way" complex. But it is rare within Hinduism.

This somewhat accommodates my understanding. I believe one who cultivates love for God, adopts truthful virtues, and seeks the Grace of God is certainly treading the right path. But there are practices I consider illogical or "empty", as to producing no effect and will only result in the practitioner groping around in the dark.

I'm not sure I understand your question? Could you clarify it please?

Why don't all Hindus just strictly abide by the teachings of the Vedas?
As the Vedas is mutually accepted by all Hindus (I suspect) to be derived from God, then where did the differences in theology within Hinduism originate?
For instance, if the Vedas preaches monotheism then why do other people of the same faith believe in the polytheistic concept or atheistic?

Only one can be correct. And the other incorrect.

But I personally think that the deities are mythological and just our own way to describe what we don't understand.
For me they are powerful symbols that can be used to reach God. Like you said they represent different aspects of God. But God her/his/itself is formless.

Yes, absolutely, and what a fantastic way to put it. I would look to them as sources of inspiration instead of something I would actually worship.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why don't all Hindus just strictly abide by the teachings of the Vedas?
As the Vedas is mutually accepted by all Hindus (I suspect) to be derived from God, then where did the differences in theology within Hinduism originate?

Hindus all accept the authority of the Vedas, but few have read them, or will read them. They are deep philosophical treatises for the most part, and unless you're a scholar, you probably won't indulge. Many people will memorize a few quotes.

This probably seems odd if you are coming from a scripture based religion, but for the most part Hindus put as much effort into worship, ethical guidelines and practice. Many other scriptures like Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, Tiruvalluvar's Tirukkural, the Bhagavad Gita, or a Guruu's wise words are used to guide people in their practise.

Differences in theology just evolved over time, as new philosophers or teachers came along. Many differences are pretty surface, and when you dig deeper, you find more similarities.

 

[Jainarayan]

Another thing is, the description of deities in Hinduism appear to be quite mythological whereby they perform out of the ordinary miracles and wage legendary battles against ghastly demons. Is it all real? What are your thoughts on this?

I believe the mythologies (mythology used as a synomym for 'story', whether historical or not, makes no difference to me ) contain lessons for us. I see them as very elaborate parables, much more elaborate than the parables Jesus used, but parables nonetheless.

I can point to at least a few Puranic stories that the modern reader would say "you've got to be kidding me, that can't possibly have happened!" to which I'd reply maybe it did, maybe it didn't. There are too many things in the universe we don't and can't know. Anyhoo... fantastical, whimsical, incredible, fabulous (used from 'fable') as they are, dig into them and you will find very simple truths enrobed in entertaining stories.

Most of the morals of the stories center around themes like: you can't fool the gods, no matter how hard you try; you can't think you can get away with murder using a loophole because loopholes can always be plugged; there is always someone smarter than you; no matter how dire the situation or in mortal danger you may be, steadfast faith in God will get you through unscathed (those are pretty much the story of Narasimhadeva, Prahlada and Hiranyakashipu); don't judge a book by its cover (you have to read the story of the marriage of Shiva and Parvati ); don't be so proud and arrogant (Krishna giving Arjuna comeuppance over Bhima's antharyagam puja); the best laid plans of evil kings to kill a god-child come to ruin (think of Herod and the slaughter of the innocents, then read the birth story of Krishna); and the list goes on.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Why don't all Hindus just strictly abide by the teachings of the Vedas?

Good question; complex answer.

1. Because the Vedas are essentially lost to us. Authoritative interpretations constituted the shakha-s (schools of Vedic theory/practice). Each shakha specialized in its own recension. Only a few recensions have come down to us today to enjoy (somewhat) widespread translation. Study is rare, and only on the academical level outside of the remnants of those shakhas, often now enshrined in family brahmanical lineages - even there, instruction is often by rote only.

The big issue here has two main aspects:

• The Vedas are originally many-layered in their meanings. The esoteric meanings are, by nature, occluded to a literal reading and reside with the esoteric traditions the Vedas emerged from. We get a glimpse of just how esoteric the symbolism is in brief revelations contained in supplementary texts such as in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad or the Taittereya Aranyaka.
• The language of the Vedas (Vedic Sanskrit) is long dead. Even an academic knowledge of Sanskrit is not sufficient at all to understand even the literal meaning of the Vedas. We're guessing. This makes it unimaginably more difficult to get at the inner meanings when the outer meaning itself is distorted and presents no guide.

2. Modern language: not only is Vedic Sanskrit dead, post-Vedic Sanskrit is also dead. Hindi is a very different animal, much influenced by Arabic, Pashto and Farsi. There are very few decent Hindi translations of the Vedas and none in English.


3. Decay of religion: and this is perhaps the biggest issue. The dharma has declined in society, and fewer and fewer people are interested in serious study & practice.

Keep in mind also the enormous influence of:

• Buddhism (and I admit this, as a Buddhist - although I think it also purged a lot of the incorrect interpretations/practices of the Vedas and preserved upanishadic thought - especially in the mahayana cycles, and also preserved Vedic deity worship in the vajrayana)
• Islamic conquest
• British rule

In effacing the Vedic legacy.

Also... Vedas take enormous study, because they are meant as a living scripture.

What I mean is; imagine scripture as equivalent to sheet music. You can't just read the sheet; you must play the instrument as instructed. The Vedas were first oral, they were transcribed to paper as a guide to their enactment. Pronunciation must be exceptionally precise, everything is in a particular array of poetic meters, and with particular intonation and accent required. So along with the Vedas, one must also study the Vedangas - the limbs of the Vedas, in order to properly enact, and therefore, understand.

Few people nowadays make such time for spiritual studies.

As the Vedas is mutually accepted by all Hindus (I suspect) to be derived from God,
then where did the differences in theology within Hinduism originate?

There are a few fringe Hindu sects which disregard or even spurn the Vedas - at least, nominally. Yet their theology is in fact very close to the Vedic style of kathenotheism - whereby various deities are singled out for worship, even as the supreme - before moving on and adoring an [apparently different] deity as supreme giving birth to all manner of paradoxical statements.

For instance, if the Vedas preaches monotheism then why do other people of the same faith believe in the polytheistic concept or atheistic?

As indicated by the above, Vedic theology is not confined to the false dichotomy of "monotheism vs polytheism." It is instead marked by transtheism and kathenotheism.

Only one can be correct. And the other incorrect.

Would you be comfortable questioning this assumption?

Or this one?

I've always personally believed God does not take birth or die, so accordingly, I could never accept a deity as God incarnate.

 

[Maya3]

Only one can be correct. And the other incorrect.

No not at all. Each one is looking at the truth, each with their own interpretations due to their culture, their experience, their knowledge and spiritual advancement.

Maya

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate? What is your view on God and where do the deities come into it, are they considered God incarnate?

Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda the foundation and the origins of Hinduism and are the inspirations of the infinite incomprehensible supreme OM.

OM is the supreme ruler of creation. Devas (male) and Devi (female) are just important entities for humans, that is why OM is said to be DevadiDev Mahadeva (The most important and greatest of all important entities).

Those who realize the infiniteness of OM, those who actions are almost divine, those who inspire others to perform godly deeds and those who protect righteousness, those who destroy evils, and perform their duty without attachment are called Deva, and considered Ishwar incarnate.
or are said to be as if the supreme lord is in the flesh.

 

[Pleroma]

Who founded the Hindu faith, or in other words, how did it originate?

All the teachings of Hindu faith can be traced back to Hiranyagarbha and there is none more ancient than him. The Vedas and the Upanishads are eternal and they were discovered and even today anyone can discover a new Veda and this knowledge belongs to no one, it belongs to the people of the world.

The Original Teachings of Yoga: From Patanjali Back to Hiranyagarbha – American Institute of Vedic Studies

According to Max Muller the proto Indo-Iranian religion started off as Sun worship and its a fact that the people of the Vedas and the Upanishads worshipped the Sun-god and he is called as the master of the Vedas.

What is your view on God and where do the deities come into it, are they considered God incarnate?

All gods reside in Hiranyagarbha and make up his body.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

III-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. ‘How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), ‘As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – three hundred and three, and three thousand and three’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Thirty-three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘six’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Two’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One and a half’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three ?’

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, ‘these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.’ ‘Which are those thirty-three ?’ ‘The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas – these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three’.

III-ix-3: ‘Which are the Vasus /’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars – these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.’

III-ix-4: ‘Which are the Rudras ?’ ‘The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one’s relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.’

III-ix-5: ‘Which are the Adityas ?’ ‘The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.’

III-ix-6: ‘Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati ?’ ‘The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati’. ‘Which is the cloud ?’ ‘Thunder (strength).’ ‘Which is the sacrifice ?’ ‘Animals’.

III-ix-7: ‘Which are the six (gods) ?’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven – these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.’

III-ix-8: ‘Which are the three gods ?’ ‘These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.’ ‘Which are the two gods ?’ ‘Matter and the vital force.’ ‘Which are the one and a half ?’ ‘This (air) that blows.’

III-ix-9: ‘Regarding this some say, ‘Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half ?’ ‘ It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory’. ‘Which is the one god ?’ ‘The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).’


These are the true gods of the Vedic Aryans.

 

[Riverwolf]

What I've perceived is the main root of Hindu Dharma; its primal source, stems from the Vedas (which purportedly originated from God), from this evolved a multitudinous exposition of other teachings, and various sects being born.

Previously I was told Hinduism includes: Atheism, Polytheism to Monotheism.

Do the dynamic, contrasting views of God and methods of worship create any conflict within the Hindu faith, for example, one denomination may assert that their path is correct and others have gone amiss, or is there a mutual understanding between everyone?

There's mostly understanding, at least in my experience, but I have been accused of not being a real Hindu, and just making up my own religion and calling it Hinduism. There is sometimes disagreement, which can get heated, just like in any religion.

But I think there's a lot of mutual understanding.

I speculate by conjecture that significant deities perhaps introduced the differences in theology which exist within Hinduism today but nevertheless if the Vedas is the bequeathal of God and contains the knowledge revealed by God, then why isn't there a major reversion to the original teachings?

Many are trying, but the thing is, nobody can agree as to what these original teachings really were. The Vedas were written in a form of Sanskrit that's thousands of years older than any form of standardization of the language, and scholars frequently disagree as to what it's saying often. It doesn't help that the verses are poetic, and almost certainly break whatever rules the language had at the time.

In addition, the oldest and youngest verse (as far as the actual material books go), are likely separated by at least a thousand years, likely more. Languages change VERY quickly in such a span of time.

Here's where I'm at loss, when it comes to the subject of deities. I've always personally believed God does not take birth or die, so accordingly, I could never accept a deity as God incarnate. Though, this does not implicate that I reject the divine status of deities.

The Atman doesn't birth or die. The Upanishads frequently stress that. But the Gods are but manifestations of the Atman, as we are.

Another thing is, the description of deities in Hinduism appear to be quite mythological whereby they perform out of the ordinary miracles and wage legendary battles against ghastly demons. Is it all real? What are your thoughts on this?

Personally, while I believe in the Gods, the stories about them are allegorical illustrations of them from the viewpoints of various people throughout history.