Archive for June, 2012

Analysis: “The Da Vinci Code”

June 24, 2012

In July, 2009, having read Dan Brown’s popular novel, The Da Vinci Code—a work of occult fiction that many readers believed was meant to reveal a long-kept secret—we posted a short piece titled: “Da Vinci Code ‘Evidence’ Debunked.” In May, 2010, having read Brown’s subsequent New York Times best-selling novel, we posted: “Analysis: The Lost Symbol.” As the third Langdon thriller (Angels & Demons was first), The Lost Symbol was Brown’s latest work in a genre we want to call “speculative esotericism.” 

Our purpose in the first post was specifically to counter the idea that Leonardo’s painting, The Last Supper, revealed that the Holy Grail was not a chalice used at the Last Supper—that the true Holy Grail was Mary Magdalene, expectant mother of a daughter fathered by Jesus. In his painting, Mona Lisa (see “Mona Lisa Mystery Solved”), Leonardo expressed his deep understanding of the Divine Feminine, and he incorporated symbolism associated with that in The Last Supper. However, the v-shaped negative space between the central figures, together with the absent chalice, symbolizes Elijah having returned and taken his cup. If Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in fact married, Leonardo’s painting is not smoking-gun-evidence for that. 

In the second post we were able to affirm the factual Noetic Science underpinnings of The Lost Symbol, an otherwise work of imaginative occult fiction. We were, however, disappointed to find that Brown’s conceptualizing of a lost symbol lacked resonance with the product of our application of the Noetitek™ system to the question. In a future writing we will reveal a real lost symbol. Meanwhile, in this post, we want to say more about The Da Vinci Code beyond our earlier focus on Leonardo’s painting. To refresh our memory, we are relying on the film version, using the two-disc DVD set for reference. 

In an early scene, we see the fictional Dr. Langdon giving a presentation on the meaning and evolution of various religious symbols and the usefulness of studying them in order to better understand the past and, thereby, the present. While much of what he, and other characters in the story, presents is correct and historically accurate, some key elements are skewed in service to the conjured revelation that the Holy Grail was Mary Magdalene. For example, Langdon refers to the rose as symbol of the Holy Grail. While not incorrect—because its connection truly is to the Divine Feminine—the rose is not specifically representative of the Holy Grail. The rose has broader meaning and varied application, as evidenced by its use over the ages. 

“The Grail has never been a cup,” says Sir Leigh. In truth, the grail is more than just a given cup. A cup—like a rose, or lily, or a bowl, or any container, including the Ark of the Covenant—can symbolize the Holy Grail. Because, as presented in our June, 2011 post: “Templar Secret Revealed,” the true Holy Grail is the “cup” that holds everything: the Infinite Omniverse, created and entered into by Source Energy Awareness (SEA). 

The idea that the bloodline of the House of David has some exclusive connection to Divine Authority incites visions of a future supreme patriarch operating as Ruler of the World. Has not the world experienced enough disastrous effects of that childish inclination, that impulse to disavow responsibility? The Da Vinci Code appears to owe much of its success to the conditioned attraction of that unenlightened dream of relief from responsibility. Yet history informs us that shedding responsibility means personal and collective disempowerment. Who wants that?