Dharma without Karma? I simply ask myself rather one could make sense of the Dharma and apply it without the concepts of rebirth and kamma? 

Though for me it is my personal approach to the Dharma, which i find to be highly meaningful in both theoretical and practical manner. As like no other intellectual complex, I think the Dharma could claim something like describing the essence and nature of being - if such claim should ever be stressed.
I would not dare to discuss this question as a devout follower. My interest is simply philosophical in its nature.

So i am just about to read C.W.Gorwans "Philosophy of the Buddha" and I am very pleased about how well balanced and respectful he treats the topic as a scholar of analytic philosophy. 
Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture, beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it - although he must have been very critical to all kinds of believe. But for example, if you consider doubtful questioning in western philosophy, such as "the meditations" of Descartes and Husserl, it seems mostly obvious that doubt could never ever stressed out in the whole sense. Even though while claiming that radical doubt will set up everything to the disposition of rational examination, there will always be some "leftover" belief as remains (for Descartes it was god , for Husserl it must have been the ego). The latter should also be a position that C.Taylor stresses in his historical treatise "Sources of the Self". 

Ok, but coming back in addressing my question to you as experts in the Dharma, what are your opinions about this issue? Could we make sense of the teaching of the Lord Buddha without believing that we will be reborn? 

As for the concept of kamma, it is possible to make sense of it without believing in rebirth.

Well I do not expect a discussion on a very high intellectual level, but maybe an exchange of ideas and opinions on the applicability of "Buddhism" and its precious teaching in a mindset that could be called "western". 
As I found out that it is a major critique of native Buddhists about western fellows that they don't sufficiently reflect the teaching according to their own culture and should not simply adopt it as a belief - which would actually be contradicting the Dharma.

warm regards!
Though "dharma without rebirth" have appeared here more than once ...


What if there is no rebirth?
What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?
Is a belief in rebirth a necessity for Buddhist practice?
Is rebirth a delusional belief?
Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?


... I'll tackle some of the points as they come to me with a interesting clothing.

"Considering the concepts of kamma and rebirth, ONE of the approaches the author offers, is that the Lord Buddha just simply took kamma and rebirth as beliefs deriving from his culture"

I'm not a buddhologist, so personally, for me to take the proposed idea seriously, the author would have to show, at least:


why the Buddha took the view of those that believe in rebirth and karma?

there's evidence that his context was diverse in regard to beliefs, and that belief in rebirth and karma may not have been as popular as we would think. So why picking this one in particular, when other views are available and believed?
If rebirth/karma was indeed such a deep part of the culture he was in, why he would "sacrifice truth for pedagogy sake" in that particular case?

...when he clearly refused in other circumstances, let alone, that he stated "whatever a Tathagata says from the moment of his enlightenment to his parinirvana, that is so, and not otherwise" -- DN29.
In the case of textual corruption inserting rebirth/karma doctrine, how these corruptions took place, and why?

it would certainly have to happen very early on. Maybe with the cumplicity of all monks and disciples (an extremely ambitious project, I'd say).


"[...] beliefs so deep and taken for granted that he would not spend a second on doubting it"

There's plenty of evidence of the Buddha being careful about his statements (see also number 2 above). Not having knowledge about something (specially something about dharma, his specialty) and declaring it would be quite careless on his part.

"Dharma without karma?"

As for the above, the tradition rejects this view. It's not just a matter of "because it's on the suttas" -- though it's overwhelmingly on the suttas. But I think that (a) the doctrine itself is intimately intertwined with these concepts; (b) it provides a complete picture of the grand scheme of things; and (c) it justifies in a very strong way the importance of the buddhist soteriology, nirvana.

But rebirth/karma seems to be something put aside by secular buddhists. I think their method for rejecting is through empirical evidence and their focus is on practicality. That is, they reject because of the lack of empirical evidence for both concepts, or inability to conciliate them with related empirical evidences:


  It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.
  
  -- http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/