• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tantric interpretation of the Q-lite sayings (Tantrics only)


gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Q-lite: The reconstructed sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yeshua

Q-lite is a special selection of the sayings in the hypothetical Sayings Source 'Q'. They have been selected on their Tantric content. There are also some sayings in Q-lite that are not a part of the "official" reconstruction of the Q sayings collection.

The difference between the extents of Q-lite and and of Q is caused by conflicting ideas about the synoptic problem, so about how the synoptic gospels are related (who copied what from whom) but also by differences in the interpretation or understanding of the individual sayings.

The Tantric interpreter takes the view that all of the original sayings have been created with Tantric spiritual and missionary instruction in mind.
With a few sayings it is doubtful whether they have enough of a Tantric content and it is therefore not entirely clear if they originally belonged to Q-lite or not.

In order for a saying to belong to the Tantric ideology it has to be based on a Tantric type of spiritual practice or be more or less related to other (extra-Biblical) Tantric texts.
The sayings collection of Q-lite is very coherent, the different sayings support each other and often form strings of coherent thought woven around a common theme.
They don't depend directly on Christian texts outside of Q-lite although there are some references to the Jewish scriptures, but never in the way done by Christian evangelists.

They don't have that same coherence with other sayings in the official Q reconstruction that are excluded from Q-lite.
Q-lite proves that there is a Tantric ideology hidden within the base of Christianity, although it cannot be proven that the sayings were ever spoken by a historical Yeshua.
The non-Q-lite sayings are different enough to show that they were created by non-Tantric religious people who were more or less ignorent about the proper meaning of the more original Q-lite sayings.
This is not only apparent from the great difference in style and content but also from the diverging second-hand use (editing) of the Q-light sayings by the (possibly three) different evangelizing authors.


gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
The million dollar question is how it happened that the integrity and understanding of Tantric Q-lite was lost at such an early stage in the formation of proto-Christianity? Why was there no-one who guarded the teachings from being abused and changed and why was the tradition lost that could still interpret the sayings in the original proper way?
Did the Ebionites still have a copy of Q-lite and were they still able to interpret the sayings in the proper way? The answer seems lost for ever in the mist of time since their scriptures and traditions were not preserved after their movement came to an all too early end.
Last edited:


gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Yeshua calls God his Father in Q-lite. Could he be referring to Shiva as the father of the universe? In one of the sayings of Q-lite he also seems to use the Holy Spirit (Supreme Consciousness) as an alternative for Father (variance between Matthews copy and Early Luke's) which is also a Tantric way of describing God.
Furthermore he explains that the Rule (so-called "Kingdom") of God should not be sought in the outside or objective world, such as in the wilderness or in the secret chambers of temples but rather in the Self (in the Subject).

Such a fundamentally Tantric (or Mystic) type of instruction is only useful if it is accompanied by actual practical techniques that help you seek the Rule of God in the Self such as with a system of meditation or yoga.
The descriptions of such techniques are absent in Q-lite, which is nothing exceptional because those techniques would always be secret instructions in Tantra, taught individually by the master, in this case by Yeshua.
All the other behavioural instructions in Q-lite are Tantric, i.e. they mirror the Yama-Niyama moral code (do's and don'ts) that Tantrics would normally follow.

But if those techniques had been taught by Yeshua to his direct disciples, then why is there no mention of them at all in Christian scriptures after Yeshua disappeared from the scene?
Did the vegetarian Ebionites still hand them down to their teachers and did it then die out with the end of the Ebionite tradition?

Somehow the mission of Christianity does not look like a true or full continuation of the mission of Yeshua as reflected in Q-lite. Christianity uses aspects of other traditions to build a new syncretic ideology that is not the same as the one in Q-lite and in some ways abandons it. This is clearly visible if you carefully compare some of the original sayings of Q-lite with their dual redacted copied versions in Matthew and Luke (older Luke as well as redacted Luke). The Christian authors are re-using the sayings in a way some people re-use old furnitures by changing the shape and colour (shift in meaning) in order to fit their different needs.
Last edited:


gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Within the Tantric lifestyle there is the paradox of acting while non-acting.

Certain Protestant Christians do not understand this paradox because they cannot understand the basic superiority of the Subjective reality (Rule of God) behind/under/within our objective existence.

We have to learn how to act while non-acting within our spiritual journey or path. God or the Subjective Reality behind everything is the real or Absolute One acting, but our so-called "own" acting is a sub-reality burdened by our mistaken sense of duality.
So the paradox is that we have to live and think in a certain way in order to grow closer to God while learning how to realise that it has nothing whatsoever to do with our own merits.

Just saying that we are so-called believers in Jesus Christ is not sufficient.
We will have to create the deep love for Yeshua through our thoughts and actions without acting through our ego-minds.
This is all included in the sayings or teachings of Q-lite, but certain Protestant Christians will try to deny this because of the dogma in their head that faith will save us through the miracle of Jesus' sacrifrice and the mistaken idea that nothing more is needed.

By superimposing their own religion over the original teachings of Yeshua they have buried the original Tantric fundament and created a new fundamentalist religious outlook.
Last edited:


gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
So how does the Tantric Yeshua of Q-lite compare to the Jesus Christ of the Christian Bible?
There is no link to the passion myth in Q-lite and one may assume that it played no role in the mission of Yeshua before Christianity took shape, i.e. Yeshua never mentioned anything related to the passion story to his direct disciples.

There is in Q-lite however the self-identification of Yeshua with the Father, so it seems his first followers may have already seen Yeshua as one with God (Holy Spirit) or the Rule of God (the goal in the teachings of Q-lite).

I personally believe that Yeshua performed so-called "miracles" (he broke the laws of physics with the force of his consciousness to educate his followers). But that in itself does not make him God for me.
It just makes Yeshua a great Tantric. A Tantric master whose mission was cut short and who was poorly understood because Israel did not have a well-established Tantric culture into which his teachings could be easily embedded without getting distorted by religious reinterpretations.