ABSTRACT
In his First Response, Manolopoulos wrestles with the Buddhist notion of impermanence. This notion occupies the most central place in all Buddhist traditions, whether Theravada or Mahayana. Manolopoulos raises the concern as to "how Buddhism negotiates" the emphasis on impermanence with "the possibility of 'timeless'/eternal truths, transhistorical values and universal rationality". Buddhist would very much allow for this; change makes both happiness and unhappiness possible. Although it is not unusual for Buddhism to be perceived as a negative worldview, the actual intention behind the development of the concept of dukkha and the demonstration of its pervasity is to underscore the importance of happiness. Many object to the notion of 'no-self' on the grounds that it raises significant ethical difficulties. Manolopoulos, for example, contends that the Buddhist denial of permanent selves and stable identities conflicts with common beliefs and practices regarding moral responsibility, accountability and promise making.
