Portrayals of Buddhist monks in American society are often pervaded with the stereotypical images of peaceful beings who radiate a sense of selfless compassion. On a whole, the movie Bulletproof Monk released in 2003 serves to support some of the main stereotypes, but does not fit entirely into the status quo of Buddhist portrayal. The movie’s setting in America serves to create the image of the Buddhist monk as one is an embodiment of tranquility and understanding, one who does not belong in a place of “strip clubs, Las Vegas and HBO.” However, the movie also breaks some of the norms and portrays the monk as one who is willing to physically fight against individuals bent on doing harm in society in order to protect the sacred scroll of his master. In the process, he paradoxically violates the principle of ahimsa in order to free society of the ‘villains’ and leave society on track for a peaceful future.
In the following trailer for the movie, the Buddhist monk is portrayed as one having qualities of deep understanding of the identity of the self, one who is in as state of continual calmness, one who can manipulate the flow of time in superhuman ways and one who can defy the laws of gravity simply by belief and meditation. The trailer also portrays an individual who embodies the underlying power of mind over body:
Brad Warner’s book, Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate, portrays a starkly realistic manifestation of Buddhism from the life of someone who lives the principles. However, both the movie and the book present similar viewpoints regarding ahimsa, although they both appear paradoxical on the surface. In the movie, the Monk strives to protect his master’s scroll which contains powerful prophesies about the future. A group of armed villains is in continual pursuit of him with the aim of killing him, obtaining the scroll, and using the prophesies to their advantage in gaining worldwide dominance. To prevent them and to keep the world on track for a peaceful future, the Monk must often engage in combative scenes and violent interactions. Paradoxically, he has to break his ideals of ahimsa in order to preserve the same for society’s future.
Similarly, Warner contemplates sacrificing his viewpoints of ahimsa for maintaining a value of peace that is also greater than himself. This similarity is most strikingly made when he thinks about the idea of euthanasia, especially while his mother is suffering from Huntington’s disease. Warner claims, “As a Buddhist, I do not find the idea entirely objectionable… there is no sin involved either in killing or in the decision to die” (45). Driven by his ideals of compassion, he does not feel as if his mother wants to live a life of suffering. He therefore theorizes that contradicting the value of ahimsa, and allowing her to undergo a death through euthanasia might, in fact, be of service to her in generating peace. Paradoxically, he thinks of violating the momentary ahimsa and engaging in an act that most people would consider a sin, all with the hopes of restoring her to a more peaceful state in the longer run.
Warner, however, is a very realistic practitioner, almost to the point where some of his ideals contradict the original views of Buddhism. The idea of reincarnation and previous lifetimes appears nonsensical to him. He directly states, “ I do not believe in heaven and hell, at least not in the conventional sense…Nor do I believe in an afterlife or in reincarnation” (61). He follows this statement with a footnote indicating: “Sorry, Mr. Dalai Lama” (61). This example serves as a way in which Warner defies the typical Buddhist principles.
Although both Warner’s book and the movie portray various key themes in regards to the stereotypical Buddhism, they also portray some points that deviate from the convention. Regardless, both present a Buddhism that molds certain views of their ideals to fit into modern-day realism.
