Dharma without Karma?
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/