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

[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)!