Finally read The Da Vinci Code

[helen99]

My mom gave me the Da Vinci Code CD set for my birthday so I used the time driving back and forth from work to listen to it.



It was fast paced and enjoyable, but a little silly at times... There are a lot of chase scenes in which our heroes, through unlikely machinations, manage to stay minutes ahead of a horde of gendarmerie, a killer monk, a mysterious puppetmaster, a treacherous butler, and a desperate bishop. These add spice and adrenaline to the actual plot, which involves figuring out an intricate puzzle left by a dead man that could point to the location and nature of the holy grail. Their sudden (and frequent) epiphanies that allow them to break the code are about as unlikely as being able to evade the entire Paris police department, but I had fun with it nonetheless...

One thing that left me puzzled was why Michael Baigent, the author of "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" (HBHG) sued Dan Brown et. al. for plagiarism. HBHG is a book that was written as a "documentary" by Michael Bagent in the early 1980s. I believe it made the bestseller list at the time. It was considered controversial in that it openly discussed the possibility that Jesus was married and had a bloodline.

20 years later, Brown, heavily borrowing from the ideas popularized in Baigent's book, wrote the Da Vinci Code. I think he had other sources that he cited, though, and also he heavily referenced his book throughout the text whenever he used someone else's books. Having read both books, I don't think there's any similarity between the books. One is a work of fiction, another a purported documentary (using the term loosely). While one borrowed heavily on the other's ideas, it did not copy the text, and referenced other sources as well as HBHG. Furthermore, HBHG sales have suddenly revived and skyrocketed since the release of the DVC book and the hype for the pending movie, so they really had nothing to complain about, except...

The name of the archvillain of the Da Vinci Code is an anagram of "Baigent"! The villain in the book is a person who arranged for the murder of over 5 people to achieve his ends... It would have looked silly for Baigent to sue for defamation of character, when he isn't even directly named in the book (just anagrammed!) The use of Baigent's anagrammed name tells me that there were probably "issues" between Baigent and Brown way before the release of Da Vinci Code.

Comments

[siabha-maellyn.livejournal.com]

That book is on my must-read list, more from curiosity than anything...

[rhiannasilel.livejournal.com]

I'm not reading the spoilers since I want to read the book myself and have been eyeing it up at the local Walgreens. I really should invest in some books on tape, especially with my commute.

[fearadyn.livejournal.com]

Yea, overall it was an ok read, very silly in parts.

However he did a wonderful job in reaching a very wide audience. There is quite a stir among the Catholics, quoting David’s mother the faithful catholic, who did read the book even tho her parish was warned to not read it. "It is nothing short of blasphemy!" meaning Jesus would have never even dreamed of actually having sex, and especially with ....a spawn of Eve, a female.....

I am like, Ok, three hundred years after his death when the Roman emperor decided to come up with a way to control the Christians and got together with other powerful men who had collected bits and pieces of writings done post humus, they just knew, beyond any doubt that Jesus never had sex. Hurmm.... so why were all the documents that mentioned such things (among other things not in keeping with what they were creating(and there were some around at that time) not allowed in the book they came up with ??

What they came up with was an incredible way to control people, and one that most likely worked better then they possibly could have imagined at the time. Which of course makes one think that there had to be other powerful forces involved here. Interesting also that the 'Dark Ages' and what grew out of that, our current civilization, came about as a direct result of this putting the 'bible' together and creating the Catholic Church. Anything left that was in a direct line, meaning bypassing the Catholic filter, went underground. The myriad array of Christianity we have today all grew out of Catholic roots, as David’s mother also reminded me of.

She just gave us this tape to view in which a bishop is supposed to knock holes in this whole thing. Haven't watched it yet, but it should prove to be interesting.

We picked up this documentary, (I think it is called Cracking the DaVinci code) a free movie at the local library and it was quite good, many things I was not aware of, (before the book, but the movie actually shows) like there really is a female painted on the left hand side of Jesus in the famous Last Supper and some of the other things that were pointed out in the book.

I mean what Genius (and he was that) to leave messages that can cut a swath centuries later thru all of Christianity right under the noses of those that destroyed the worship of the Goddess in the first place. It truly makes me wonder if Da Vinci knew that one day the time of these hidden messages would come. I mean he (or they) played on the very greed of the church to keep what he created for them safe. And so keep the hidden messages safe. And, he was right.

I am much more interested in what Tom Hanks will do with this character in the upcoming movie, which will reach many many more people. I really think this is going to prove itself too tempting to a host of mainstream America who would have never even dreamed of such things, because of that, I think it has the ability to change some fundamental things in the flow of mass consciousness that we currently swim in.

The Catholics are certainly worried about it, and that in itself says a very great deal.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

> However he did a wonderful job in reaching a very wide audience.

That he did. I was thinking of something after I read it. What if the actual plot of the book, although important, is not the actual message. What if the book itself is a puzzle. A kind of a meta-puzzle, lol, since it contains a puzzle (the plot) inside of it, but it is a greater puzzle in and of itself.

> She just gave us this tape to view in which a bishop is supposed to
> knock holes in this whole thing. Haven't watched it yet, but it should prove to be
> interesting.

Well, of course they would want to knock holes in it, since if people believe it, that would cost them their jobs...

I have seen "Cracking the Da Vinci Code" in book form (it's partially why I wonder if the book is a meta-puzzle, with the book's plot offering ways to decipher the Larger Puzzle, if you will...

What was amusing about the end of the book was that Langdon kept searching for the grail, when "the grail" was right under his nose the whole time, in the form of Sophie, who turns out to be a Grail Princess (a direct descendant of the Merovingians).

I'm hoping there's not some horrible catholic backlash to this movie in the form of Ratzinger's contingent. There probably will be. These kinds of things have come up before, in the form of the Gnostics and such, and the reaction has always been violent. What really chills me is that people are being told what they can and cannot watch, as if they're little children who don't know better. I'm glad Dave's mom made the decision to see it and decide for herself, even if she disagreed with it - that shows some character and backgone.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

Er.. I mean backbone, not backgone, Lol!

[fearadyn.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you got that reaction, that there is more here then meets the eye. I got the same, but then I thought perhaps it was just me.

It just seems that the story the author wove around so much that is complicated is too simplistic. But then I don't know much about this guy, I mean did he just get his information from other books? Or is he a part of some of these hidden sects that he refers to?

This has the feel to me of a larger something, the timing is just to correct. Even the simplistic way it was written that would appeal to a very large audience. That it was made into a movie so soon after the book hit the stands. Then the widespread media coverage of the authors, ‘trial’ and most of all that it appears to be working.

As far as David's mother is concerned, (lol, I didn't even see the misspelling, I read it as backbone) lets just say she enjoys scouting out the enemy.

What is chilling to me is that so many females just like her would willingly choose to be seen as the authors of original sin and death. That their babies are not at all innocent and will go to hell if they die without a catholic baptism. That their bodies are not the personification of the Goddess but instead something horrible. An example of what this does~She told me just the other day (and a great many things clicked into place) that even tho she was 'legally' married to David’s father, they lived in 'sin' for over 25 years because they did not have a catholic marriage. She said she was very glad when he left (telling her he just couldn't take 'living in sin anymore') because that meant she could finally take sacrament again. Well, David was born during this 'sinful' union and she certainly brought him up to be ashamed of just about everything about himself. Sick, sick, sick... And she is very typical of 'faithful' catholic females.

I think this church is just hoping all this will blow over, however if too many of the 'faithful' begin questioning, and already they are having a very difficult time recruiting priests, then we will see severe backlashes. The possibility for violence certainly exists.

I have asked Christians (of different sects), "What if you found out that Jesus was not born of a virgin?" Or, "What if you found out that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Would it affect your faith in the things he said, how he said we should all live and treat each other?" Each and every person I asked said they would loose all their faith, that their faith depended on these things happening as their church told them they happened. They all said if they lost their faith, then "Anything goes".

So if the things brought up in this book are provable to a large enough audience, then think of mass amounts of people all loosing their 'faith', all of them realizing they have been shysted by this power hungry political force who is clothed in religious garb. I mean look at the violence that ensues over minor religious issues.

Oh yea, with this one, the possibility for violence is there all right.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

My guess is that Dave's mom and dad were just tired of each other and used that as an excuse. If they were really that concerned with living "in sin", then why didn't they get remarried in a Catholic church and legitimize their son (according to their worldview - dave is ligitimate regardless of origin!!). It just doesn't add up.

Back to the book. The thing is, the Da Vinci Code does not portray the church as the bad guys. Throughout the story we _think_ they're the bad guys, but then in the end it becomes apparent that Bishop Aringarosa was being manipulated (through his weakness of not wanting to lose his power) by an evil Templar, Leigh Teabing.

Now the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (the first book to suggest that Jesus was married to Magdalene) was written by Leigh, Baingent, and Lincoln. Baigent is Teabing scrambled.

I found this most confusing, since I've always loved the Templars, Baigent, his books, his lectures, etc. It was weird seeing Baigent vilified, especially because I've read his book. I don't believe everything he says, but I think the gist of what he says in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is correct - that the true teachings and life of Jesus were thoroughly suppressed, along with any vestige of the sacred feminine, and what most people have been fed all their lives by way of the current "bible" is utter bullshit formulated for political purposes. The reason this doesn't affect me the way the people describe ("anything goes - I've lost my faith") is that I was raised outside of any church to begin with, and any values imparted to me were values of my own, not imposed by some deity (so anything doesn't go, whether Jesus was married or not...) What concerns me more is Baigent. Why was this author's name scrambled to be the archvillain in the Da Vinci Code?

I don't know whether or not the way Baigent and Brown describe it is correct. It could be. Or maybe not. Jesus may very well have been uninclined toward women and never gotten married - some suggested he was in a gay relationship with John (luckily Dave's mom doesn't know about that, lol!).

But you are right that now this has reached the mainstream (whereas in the 80s it was "secret" doctrine of the fringe historians like Baigent). I'm sure the Catholics will be most concerned, especially ones at the level of David's mom (the brainwashed ones). It's hard to say what the ones in the upper eschelons of the church are up to. They may be planning a sequel to the Da Vinci Code as we speak... (that's how convoluted I think this place is...)

[fearadyn.livejournal.com]

His mom says because his dad was married to another woman before her, the church would not marry them.

It just amazes me how widespread and complete the brainwashing is. Unless you had parents like yourself, who didn't buy into the bullshit, and those like you, who never bought into it, or were just weird like me. At eight I asked a priest some very very deep questions, nothing a normal eight year old would normally ask, but then I have always thought about the deep things. He like rose two feet off the floor looked down his nose at me like I was a bit of scum on the floor he would avoid and said "There are some things we are not meant to know." ~lol~

That was it for me and that church. I began looking elsewhere to ask my questions. But then my mother encouraged such things, she was one of the less faithful catholics.

And right we don't know if Jesus was sexual or no, had kids, was gay... Although ones like Davids mom would more easily accept that he was gay. I am serious! To me in truth it is none of my buisness, I don't care what he did with his penis. The things he taught does not rest on his scrotum. But I have to confess I do love the shock value of it. I don't care about the miracles, he did or did not do, miracles happen around us all the time, this is what he was trying to point out.

I agree completly he was in that space of the mad prophet/shaman who had the connection and pointed out that we all are sons and daughters of the creator, we all have the ability to become who we truly are, that it is in us, not in the hands of any priest. But this is an old truth and shared by many great cultures.

The most obvious thing he did which all the writers seemed to agree on is that he did not support the 'rich' temples under the control of rich priests. He did encourage small gathers, teaching outside of any building. I think he would be very comfortable at Thresholds. The most omminous thing is that I don't believe he could not have known that those who are attracted to power would not take control of what he started and twist it into something it was never meant to be.

..Or was it?...

So that is my question, was this a 'majic do as you will' kind of thing. Or did he unlease this on purpose, knowing what would happen, created the monster for those few who would only grow with that type of fight? But the very greed of the church did carry many many things into this age. I would love to see what would happen if the Vatican ever opened its vast storehouses of artifacts.

~"I found this most confusing, since I've always loved the Templars, Baigent, his books, his lectures, etc. It was weird seeing Baigent vilified, especially because I've read his book."~
Ah, I havn't read his books. Yes that is odd. Your right, who the hell knows where this is all coming from. The hidden sects that are refered to also are and have been almost from their inception, very rich. Look at how popular things like the masons are and how its attracts buisness men, "I do for you, you do for me' politics at its fringes. Who knows just how powerful the core of this is. Or just what it moves on a global scale. There was much hinted at but hardly nothing given.

[fearadyn.livejournal.com]

The mormon religion which is a direct outgrowth of masonic teachings via Joseph Smith, and is also very very rich, and very political, and is growing much faster than the catholic church, interested me enough that some years ago I worked my way up to going to the temple. The thing you don't hear is that they believe that we are here to become Gods and Goddesses of our own worlds one day. All thru the ways of those teachings of course. They baptise everyone they can get their hands on, living or dead, mostly because all those people who do not rise thru the ranks to become Gods/goddesses will serve as servents to them. But that is the big secret that no one is supposed to tell non mormons. They are poly because it takes alot of people to serve a God/Goddess of a world. So have lots of wives and thus lots of kids. They believe there is a God and his consort/s of this world. And the thought of Jesus having a wife is quite accepted to them.

However, take away the miracles, and ettt...no more faith, no more Jesus...

The temple was quite an experience. I was first taken into a room, had to put on a white shift that was split down both sides and I was annoited by this group of females. That part was quite lovely. We then had to put on these odd customes that symbolized the leaves and such that Adam and Eve wore. Then we had to go into this room with others going thru the ceremony to swear this oath and do things like draw our fingers as if they were daggers across our throats and bellies, meaning that this is what would happen if we spilled the beans. Symbolic now, but it was apparent that in the past it may not have been just symbolic.

There are actually some very good books by renegade mormons that explain the whole thing in great detail, if you are interested I will try to get the name of them (had a copy once, don't know where it went). I did the same thing there that I did with the priest. We had been told that once we went thru the ceremony and you have to go thru this veil at the end, symbolizing the veil between this world and the next, that I could ask any question I wanted. So, I asked my deep questions, some of which included Joseph Smiths obvious connection to the masons and such. I really didn't think it a big deal because it is so obvious. I was pretty much told the exact same thing the priest of long ago told me. "There are some things we are not meant to know". ~lol~ Yep, that was it for them. Screw you buddy, why should I keep my end of the bargin when you did not keep yours?

Well I have been told by a goodly number of christan religions that I am headed to hell, either I am not like them or I ask to many questions. However, things like sacred sex, the female being the sacred alter were defenitly hinted at in this ceremony. There are some good things there, very strong sence of family, but they also will excommunicate you if you read things you are not supposed to read. Or if you 'spill the beans'. And that type of mass brainwashing just rankles me to no end. If you are going to open the door to some of the older teachings, then don't put them under the guise of devine revalation to one worthy person that cannot be questioned. Then it becomes nothing more then a power play.

Yea I looked up the 'Gospel of Judas' online a few weeks ago and read it. I was not impressed with so much of it missing. Some of it was rather interesting, Judas seemed to ask some good questions, but of course the answers were erased.

In the end I just watch and wait. This could be a big splash or a very small ripple. Either will be most interesting.

[helen99.livejournal.com]

> that was it for them...

You probably went through the best part of it with the ceremony. It's weird but with a lot of secret societies, their whole 9 yards of secretry is spelled out in that first little initiation if people can read it. I've always found them interesting but a mite scary - it's too easy for unscrupulous types to take over and then the whole lot of them are nothing but pawns in some idiot's agenda... (same goes for any religion that uses intermediaries, really).

> However, things like sacred sex, the female being the
> sacred alter were defenitly hinted at in this ceremony.

Yup - noticed that just from the description.

> Yea I looked up the 'Gospel of Judas' online a few weeks ago
> and read it. I was not impressed with so much of it missing.
> Some of it was rather interesting, Judas seemed to ask some good
> questions, but of course the answers were erased.

Of course... I noticed that. And the ones that weren't erased had Jesus asking him why he was asking the question or some other roundabout answer. He never really gave anyone a straight answer. It was always some sort of parable or else responding with a question... (typical of a mad prophet!!) That's what they shoulda done with you. Instead of saying "you're not meant to know" they should have given you some sort of weird parable-riddle thingy. Then they would have had you for life (they're not the brightest bulbs in the pack)!

[helen99.livejournal.com]

Afterthought: The Gospel of Judas has hit the shelves. Unfortunately ths very fragile and ancient document had a rough time at the hands of the shady antiquities biz, and so a lot of it did not survive - there are lines and words missing eeverywhere. I doubt there is another copy of it, either. They didn't have xeroxes then, lol, and Judas wasn't the most popular guy in the world so a ton of scribes probably did not line up to copy his gospel. What survived is rather extraordinary, though, and gives some insights that other gospels don't into the more esoteric side of Jesus. Jesus was a 'mad prophet' in my opinion - loony as a jaybird, but Connected. The few things you can make out in the Gospel of Judas that he said to Judas (who was apparently the more intellectual of the bunch, though that may just be how he portrayed himself, lol) sort of show that. Loony in the sense that a deeply connected Stellar-realm Shaman is connected. I wonder if some of it was erased purposely. I hope not, but people are stupid a lot of the time.

[lailea.livejournal.com]

I’ve read through this conversation and I think there are some things I should point out. While I have no intention of defending the Catholic religion, few acknowledge the fact that, though the Virgin Mary is repressed, she is also considered deified, a saint, and titled “the Mother of God” by the Catholic religion, conveying that while other religions completely suppressed worship of the feminine and many Christians consider it absolutely wrong to pray to a woman, the Catholics continued to pray to her and, likewise, acknowledge her as a powerful part of their beliefs. “Maria”>”Ma Rhea”>”My Queen”. (They say a lot in their Latin that the general populace has no clue of. I won’t even touch the rosary, rose windows, rosemary, etc.) In many ways, the Catholic church has, while it’s done a ton of horrific things, kept the sacred feminine alive, well, and literally untouched. Likewise, there are sects in Catholicism that completely focus on Mary and the feminine. You won’t see Baptists praying to Mary, after all, or a ton of other Christian and non-Christian religions out there.

Personally, I find it interesting to see how the movie counteracts the let’s-get-into-the-blood-and-gore-of-crucifixions of Mel Gibson’s fiasco. I apologize, but what they did to Jesus (playfully referred to by some scholars as “Hey Zeus”), hardly measures up to what I’ve seen in records of what was done to people during the Inquisition and elsewhere. I’ll stop there about the Inquisition or I won't stop. lol

As for why Michael Baigent sued Brown, and particularly his casting him in a fairly diabolical role, I think has more to do with the dessimation of information, who has the right and how. As well, by casting it in fiction, the research is, from a scholar’s perspective, subtly bastardized and muted. Another reason for Baigent to sue is, of course, to pull attention to the fact that his work is out there. I assume he knew going in that he’d lose, but recognition of his work as a real, not fictional, entity, may have been well worth it for him.

I'll stop there. :)

Many blessings,
Lailea

[helen99.livejournal.com]

> though the Virgin Mary is repressed, she is also considered
> deified, a saint, and titled “the Mother of God” by
> the Catholic religion, conveying that while other religions
> completely suppressed worship of the feminine and many
> Christians consider it absolutely wrong to pray to a woman,
> the Catholics continued to pray to her and, likewise, acknowledge
> her as a powerful part of their beliefs. “Maria”>”Ma Rhea”>”My Queen”.

This is one of the reasons I find some of the fundamentalist sects very frightening - they consider the Catholic religion to be of the 'devil' because of its good points! The fact that Mary is worshipped and some of the Pagan iconography has been kept disguised but intact are its redeeming qualities, along with the fact that it has inspired some of the finest art and literature.

But the most negative aspects of the original church have been distilled into a synthetic poison, which seems to be fueling many other religions. People under its influence seem to lose their own perceptions to a large extent.

[lailea.livejournal.com]

All of the iconography of the Catholic church extends to deeper roots, even sometimes predating the Roman “Pagan” iconography. The mass, itself, is a reflection of ritual pertaining to the rising/falling god mythos. :)

I think the “synthetic poison” can be found in most religions, not just the Catholic one. Fundamentals in many religions carve their beliefs to suit their agendas. There’s a fracturing within Christianity so that regardless of what the pope might say, some Christian religions would disagree just to disagree. I also think the poison is far more prevalent in the political sphere which uses the current fundamental Christian ideals to further its agenda.

Interestingly enough, while the DaVinci Code highlights DaVinci, of course, he was not the only one to be interpreted as trying to preserve the sacred feminine as the Catholic church was taking over the European landscape with warrior popes and witches hammers. Others, as well, have been and are being sited, including Dante. There is, and has always been, a tension within the church and politics regarding the sacred feminine. There's a trail of evidence left across history that testifies to the fact, though many things have been buried, modified and/or lost by agendas.