 |
|
|
Click here to Buy a physical Copy
Chapter 13
|
CHAPTER TEN: Mon Salai:
This chapter explains why the painting of Salai fits and combines with the Mona Lisa and how this was obviously Da Vinci’s intention.
If you've seen or read the "Da Vinci code" you know that Dan Brown asserted that Mona Lisa could be a double meaning to the Egyptian gods. Male and female. Amon (mona) & Isis. (lisa)
This was very likely to have been Da Vinci’s intent. But even more interesting is what Mona Lisa re-arranged turns into. ANAGRAM:
M O
N A L I S A
Salaino – ona lisa – (Mona Lisa without the M…) (Thanks Don Ferry!)
I'm sure there are even more but what's interesting to me is SALAI. "mon" means "my" in french. So "mon Salai" means "my Salai" This could also be considered a coincidence but you have to consider that in all of Da Vinci's journals, the name "SALAI" is used most. It would be a fairly big coincidence to have your lover's name in the title of your most cherished painting.
Dan Brown was onto something in his story with re-arranging letters to find new words and meaning. Mona Lisa, has been haunting me for a very long time. I knew there was something to the name, but couldn’t figure out exactly what it was. Of course when I first started on all of this I didn’t even know who Salai was. Even if I would have tried to re-arrange the letters I would have never even have noticed Salai as something important. I had never even heard that word or name before. So, not surprisingly I didn’t figure this out until pretty late in the game. I remember when I first started to re-arrange MONA LISA. I was expecting it to make something, but when It spelled out “Mon Salai” I thought - no fricken way! I somehow knew what “mon” meant but was interested to find out it’s a French word.
You might remember his playing with French and English in the previous chapters with the other names for the painting. Mona Lisa was no different. Some might think “Mon Salai” is just a coincidence, but Da Vinci spent the last few years of his life in France so it’s not like French wasn’t in his repertoire. It’s also been shown how he’s used French and Italian for double meanings previously so it’s a pretty sure bet that this is what he had in mind. Not to mention the other version of Salaino spelling it out as well..
As I’ve said before, Lisa Giacondo wasn’t used for her face - but for her name. Vasari specifically said “Mona Lisa” to ensure its use as the name of the painting. It might also be relevant that Salai Giacomo and Lisa Giacondo have very similar last names. This is also probably a clue. They are only a couple letters off and I’m sure someone who knows more about language and this whole name game could find a correlation. It’s another pretty big coincidence.
There is a lot more to this than various names with various meanings. When I was thinking of all the various possibilities for the identity of the Mona Lisa I found a daughter to be the most interesting - but also the most improbable. Obviously there is a drive to reproduce and have children in just about everyone. Sexuality may help hinder that possibility, but not eliminate it. Da Vinci and Salai would not be able to have children but that wouldn’t mean they didn’t want one. So they would have been left with very few options. One of which, which is very far fetched ESPECIALLY 500 years ago would be to create a child. Huh? Create a child? We can barely do that now! How could someone do that when they didn’t even know exactly how children were created? Not really anyway.
So this is where it got pretty interesting and bizarre - even for me. I had seen one of those pictures that takes two portraits of two people and then combines the faces to create a baby.. Ahhh. As I stated before, if Mona Lisa was Da Vinci’s painted daughter and he were to imagine this daughter to have another parent it would have definitely been Salai.. It makes sense but would be pretty difficult to produce - at least for anyone besides Leonardo Da Vinci. Since he all but created the idea of Anatomy and studied how we age and the minute specifics of the human body- he more than anyone else, even those machines in malls that do it, could imagine what the offspring of two different people would look like. I realize how fantastic this theory could be when credited to just anyone, but since we’re talking about Da Vinci doing it, anything is possible.
So what am I saying exactly? What is it that “Mon Salai” means? How does that prove that the Mona Lisa is a metaphorical, painted portrait designed by the worlds greatest painter to combine with another parent to create a child?
Interestingly when I first conceived of this idea it was RIGHT after I saw a picture of two faces making their baby. I honestly never, NEVER thought that it would be correct. But, again, I was wrong in thinking anything was impossible. As I finally finished my book, with a daughter being an alternative possibility I couldn’t help but attempt to put the painting of Salai over the Mona Lisa… and guess what??
The Mona Lisa & A composite image of a painting of Salai over the Mona Lisa.
Although they look nothing alike- They combine perfectly. Now I know what some of you might be thinking - yeah right, that’s just another “coincidence” or someone trying to copy the Mona Lisa. But, BUT the most interesting part isn’t that these two paintings match up, it’s that the image that’s created when they do that’s amazing.
A composite of the Painting of Salai and Mona Lisa. Red and green Channels being separated. Also combine them with your eyes and notice the stereogram effect. You might also notice how it looks more like a photograph than a painting.
Look at it.. Seriously just look at it for a while and think about it. This isn’t a painting, this is two paintings placed on top of each other from 500 years ago! Now, if these weren’t specifically designed to do this, why would the combined image look even more beautiful and alive than either “parent” image?? I could understand if they aligned and the image it created was distorted or looked strange, but this is more than that, isn’t it?
I really couldn’t believe it. You might think I was happy to figure this out, but I actually was kinda pissed. I thought I had finally figured it out, I had finished a book trying to prove that the Mona Lisa was really Da Vinci as a woman and right as I thought I figured I out, AGAIN, I found something else.. Time to start all over. You could imagine my reaction when I not only found these two paintings matched up, but that Salai’s name was in the title. Another strange coincidence that might finally just be a coincidence is that Mon Salai could also be M on Salai. M being Mona. She does go on Salai so maybe it’s not a coincidence?
There will no doubt-idiotically be those who don’t want to believe in anything I’ve just asserted, even if it is the truth. I could have all the proof in the world that Da Vinci was gay and the Mona Lisa is really this intricate and compassionate way to tell the world of his love for another man and the child they couldn’t have. I would say that the evidence speaks for itself but regardless there will be those who would discredit it, not for its validity, but sadly for its implications.
Sexuality?
Sexuality has had its ups and down throughout human history. It’s akin to racism and female equality. There have been times where women were queens and then times where they were treated like slaves. There have been times when homosexuality wasn’t considered abnormal and times when people were killed for it. All but one of the roman emperors were bi sexual not to mention Alexander the Great, Issac Newton, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael… Remember the list of geniuses? It’s pretty funny that you’ll find a good percentage of them to be, or at least have homosexual tendencies. What does that say? Why are they so hated and feared? Reminds me of the x-men who tried to help a world that hated and feared them. Da Vinci happened to live in a time when you could have been burned alive for sodomy charges. He was actually charged once but dropped for lack of evidence.
What’s disheartening is in a world where equality is stressed, it can also be promoted openly!. We’re taught in school that everyone is equal, women, “African” Americans (Why aren’t they simply American? I’m not considered Italian American??) the mentally handicapped, - everyone right? Wrong, everyone but homosexuals. They are considered unequal in the eyes of the President of the United States; evident in his trying to change the constitution to specify “man and woman” which seems pretty discriminatory to me. Definitely has nothing to do with state as much as faith, which are suppose to be separate. I think. What would happen if he tried to specify “White male and white woman” Would that be discriminatory?
I could go into the specifics of sexuality and morality to try and show why it’s anything but immoral but those who have those opinions won’t be swayed by anything I could write here. Or could I? It doesn’t matter that the only place it says anything about homosexuality being wrong in the bible is in the same place where it says you’re not suppose to pick up sticks on a certain day, or interbreed live stock. Or that it says nothing about two women being together. So if you wanted to get technical lesbians are perfectly ok according to the bible. The only thing the bible says is
"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee!!!!"
Literally translated to;
“And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman, it is a moral sin (abomination)"
That verse could be taken many different ways. “Lay lyings of a woman” could mean that two men can’t lay together in a woman’s bed (lay lyings). That they can’t have sex like they would with a woman in a pagan temple ritual (what some infer from it’s context), or That they can’t have sex(lay) with other men. You have to consider it I the context of it’s time. The rest of the Chapter is talking about “uncovering the nakedness” of different people: what is ok and what is not. God is talking to Moses and telling him what is ok and what is not. He says things like
“Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.”
Basically giving the various rules of sexual conduct from thousands of years ago. Don’t “undercover the nakedness” of your family. Interestingly Leviticus 18: 14 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.” Which insinuates that it might be ok with other men besides your uncle, why else specifically specify only one male relative? It doesn’t say “you shall not uncover the nakedness of another man” but only specifies your uncle.
This is the only place in the bible where it says anything about homosexuality. What’s interesting to me, and “wrong” is what you might read in some current versions of the bible.
From the “living bible” "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
You can find that in the same place where “A man should not lay lyings with a man as he would a woman.” - Is supposed to be. For some reason people think it’s perfectly ok to change what the original words were - to intentionally make it worse. That would be like me taking the verse before this one:
Leviticus 18, 21: “And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord!” Then I start rallies, protests, and get out of bed each day intent of censoring and punishing anyone and everyone who uses the lord’s name in vain. Or perhaps I could make a change to the constitution that specifies “Man and woman” no no, “Man and women who aren’t on their period” or go around burning people who have slept with their neighbor, anyone who’s taken a woman as a rival to her sister, and anyone who cheated with their brothers wife. Because all of those are in the same chapter, and equally “wrong.” (in the eyes of the lord, thy God)
My point is that you don’t see people protesting people who have let their “decedents pass through the fire to molech.” The rule before “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Which seems to be seriously miss-interpreted, miss-used, and sadly miss-understood.
What’s also interesting is that it’s those types of people who ,out of the entire bible , choose to focus and hate and discriminate people based off one obscure verse. I just don’t understand why someone gets up in the morning and thinks – “hmm, I have nothing better to do with my life. Lets go protest homos!” I could understand passive dislikes, but going out of your way to do something that hurts someone else is strange. Most of the time it ends up being someone who is 10x’s worse than the people they are discriminating against. Two wrongs make a right?
“Thou shall not murder” and “an eye for an eye” are conflicting, but that’s ok. People will take a side or ignore it. They’ll also pick and choose what they choose to believe in, and what they choose to ignore about the bible. But when it comes to sexuality they choose to embrace the negative. In actuality, sleeping with a woman when she’s on her period is breaking the same set of rules as with a man. Yet that can be considered “out dated” or “but I’m horny, god will forgive us. We can use a towl” It’s amazing what people can justify when it comes to their own “sins” and what is held at Jesus standards for others. Hypocrisy is a double edged sword, it cuts those who use it, and are cut down with it.
It’s also pretty significant to notice that the verse says nothing about loving another man! (or two woman doing anything they want) Nor does it say anything about anything but Laying with one as you would a woman. Technically, that seems to only mean vaginal sex. Even if you wanted to have that encompass anal sex – every other form could still be ok! So you’re ok with the Lord as long as you “lay” in bed with anyone! Right? Do it in an elevator, a kitchen, a couch – all perfectly ok! (I’m exaggerating to show how absurd the verse is.)
I was one of those for much of my life; “Homosexuality is wrong” I had been told that growing up, at school, on tv, by my hypocritical father, and countless “Christians.” But as I grew up, I began to realize it’s really not that big of a deal. I don’t give a shit anymore. I don’t care if someone is Black, Jewish, Mexican, Arian, Caucasian, Baloney-sexual, freckly, fire crotched, buck toothed, white trash, drag queens, little people, obese people – I just don’t care. It takes too much effort to judge someone. Let their actions dignify themselves, not their appearance. You don’t even have to like someone, just leave them alone.
There have been those who use the bible as the support for wearing white robes and hanging and harassing black people. And people who use it as the basis for their cults. The list goes on and on. I will say there are Christians who accept homosexuality as being ok but that only goes to show how everyone CHOOSES to accept what they believe in. It’s a belief not a fact. If you choose to hate someone for something they can not change you shouldn’t be able to call yourself “Christian” This is not to mention those who consider homosexuality to be “wrong” who are in no way moral in their own lives – as if they even understand what morality is. But still throw around words like immoral, wrong, unnatural, and such. Yet in their own lives- thrive on hypocrisy.
I could say it’s wrong to murder. Most would agree. That is unless we’re at “war” – but does that really make it right? Just because a country says it’s ok during a certain time period – it’s ok? Like a political authority governs morality and divinity? It’s ok to go to another country and drop bombs on innocent people in the guise of peace? For what other reason is it ok to kill peole? But it’s not ok for two women to get married?? THAT’s Immoral? People have some fucked up priorities if you ask me! Hahaha It’s so stupid it’s funny.
Homosexuality is “un-natural” yet Elephants, whales, apes, and birds can be “homosexual.” Is that “un-natural”? Maybe they forgot to read that verse? Interestingly, Elephants specifically will engage in same sex partnerships which can last for years while only breeding with females to mate and then immediately leave. So it seems that elephants, which are considered one of the smartest animals there are have loving relationships with the same sex, and then only sexual relationships with the opposite. But lets get real; How many guys who think homosexuality is “wrong” or gross -watch girl on girl pornography? It’s ok for two women to have meaning less “sex” but its wrong for two men love each other and raise a family? Being gay isn’t only about sex any more than being straight is. Take away the “Sex” and its fine. Add it, you’re going to hell?
“Being Gay” is a facade in itself. Without there being an alternative option, “being straight” wouldn’t exist. There wouldn’t be “heterosexuality” because there wouldn’t be anything BUT that. Sexuality is only one of thousands of different behavioral characteristics that make up who we are. For instance, if someone is on a remote island and never knew, or had a concept of “religion” they shouldn’t be considered an “atheist” Atheist is a contrast to a belief in a “God” It’s the comparison between two things that creates them. On that remote island, the people wouldn’t define themselves as “religious” or “Atheist” because neither would exist. So if you choose, you could consider sexuality as you would a preference for eating meat. A vegetarian wouldn’t be defined as being a vegetarian if no one ate meat. It’s the same reason eating meat can be seen as morally wrong to some, but not even considered anything by someone else. Other people may want to classify you, to group you into good and bad, but that doesn’t mean that what they are grouping is good or bad. You could be considered to be “gay” or “straight” but that doesn’t mean you are either. You could be considered neither. Are you gay? “I have no preference.” Huh? “I’m not with anyone right now, so I don’t know” Do you like girls or boys? “ I guess it depends.” ON what? You like both? “No, I guess neither. It depends on the person.” So you’re .. what? “Neither, I guess” –oh.
Sex isn’t the only thing in the world. It’s essential, but so are a lot of things that we don’t use to classify ourselves. Take race for example. Does Black mean just “African American” or dark skinned? Just because someone is black doesn’t mean they should be considered “African American” any more than I would be considered “Italian, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch American” I am either simply, American, or neither. If someone had grandparents from different cultures, at what point does it stop mattering? Isn’t it all just linguistic labels? The need for words, and opinions, and beliefs?
The point being: you are what you are. Not just a single characteristic. You are who you want to be, not who others try to classify you as.
So defining someone as something means the one doing the defining dictates definitions. But who are they? Last I heard God is still intangible, invisible, and hasn’t written anything (through anyone) in quite some time!
After all my pondering and research I’m left with a very vague idea about sexuality. It only matters if you choose for it to matter. It’s not a mental disorder or something to be ashamed of. There are degrees of sexuality both homosexual and heterosexual that are damaging and “wrong.” I believe that something is wrong only if it hurts yourself or someone else. But love is not. Sex can be, love is not. Take what you want from this but remember that just because YOU think something is wrong, or someone else does - doesn’t mean that it is.
I think it was Jesus who said it best with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and there isn’t a provision that says it’s ok to ignore that when you want, or when it suites you. Also most Christians believe in Jesus and his teachings above all, especially the previous books of the bible. Jesus mentioned nothing about homosexuality but instead mentioned compassion and acceptance. Cast the first stone? Remember that one? It’s also interesting that sexuality scientists have found that over 60% of men have engaged in some form of homosexual activity.. That’s more than half! But like I just got through explaining, one act, or even many – doesn’t define you. You are what you want to be, not what someone else might like to label you.
Ignorant morality aside, I would think Da Vinci, more than anyone else knows and has considered what is right and wrong and with more intelligence behind it than anyone else. For someone considered to be the greatest genius of all time, the fact that he loved another man is irrelevant. It doesn’t change any of the amazing things he’s done, or make him any less of a man. He strived his entire life for absolute truth and understanding and if this story and the true identity of the Mona Lisa is any indication. Well, I would say Mona speaks volumes to the ignorance of the world. Of the hypocrisy of open sexuality vs. peoples private lives.
I think that who you are and what makes you who you are doesn’t have to have anything to do with your preferences. There are those who choose to full heartedly let sex and sexuality guide their lives and those who do not.
Don’t allow other people’s beliefs determine your worth or tell you what is right and what is wrong. After all, you can’t choose who you love or who you are attracted to, but you can choose what you act on and what you do not. With all the infidelity in the world, divorce, and the horrible things people do to each other. It’s not fair to ignore your own faults and cast stones at others - no matter who you are. Christianity is about love and forgiveness, not hate and discrimination.
But everything above is considering that the bible is correct. That you’re basing your morality off of Christianity or that you even care. Don’t forget that there are over 300 different versions of Christianity. Not to mention thousand of other religions, all of which equally consider their beliefs valid and true. Whether Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christian, or Wiccan there is someone, somewhere who believes something completely different than you do, will hate you for it, and themselves even more. The most logical conclusion when considering religion is not coming to any. The only person you know isn’t lying to you, is yourself. Also don’t forget that morality isn’t governed be religion. You can be not just a good person, but a great person, and not be religious at all. The same way someone can be “religious” and an absolutely horrible person. You know who you are.
As forrest Gump would say; “That’s about all I have to say about that.”
This also makes it very apparent why he had to tell this story in secrets, with clues, and double meanings. It’s also pretty obvious that even if someone would figure this out if they didn’t like what they found they wouldn’t tell anyone or even notice.
I also remember looking at the painting of Salai for the first time and noticing that the loops in the neckline looked similar and he looked really girly. I thought it might have been by Da Vinci but other than the loops, it’s a very different look.
The Painting of Salai has very sharp and contrasting features than the Mona Lisa, but that’s why it works. It turns the soft and eerie Mona into a very pretty daughter.
Side by side They don’t look anything alike, it’s easy to see why no one would think they’re by the same artist or similar in anything but posture. But once you look at them more closely it starts to change. (try crossing them with your eyes)
They aren’t just similar, they’re almost identical!
|
