There doesn’t need to be a cosmic ledger, there only needs to be cosmic laws that can’t be broken, and a cosmos in which everything is bound to those laws. If you grant those two axioms, you must grant a cosmic trajectory that can’t be changed. The fact that everything is the result of causes and conditions is what is most important. The Buddha specifically says that there isn’t some cosmic ledger that causes and conditions can’t effect, that would be ridiculous, and that’s exactly what I think it was Makkhali Gosala said, and the Buddha refuted it. Of course there is causes and conditions, but that still doesn’t mean that what’s going to happen is going to happen no matter what. It’s an important concept because it totally eliminates any possibility of a self. If there was free will, then who is making the decisions? Free will implies a self, a self that is making those decisions. Without self there is no decisions being made, and so no question of free will, it’s just a deterministic cosmos playing itself out. Any argument for this not being the case is either based on pure randomness, which is clearly not that case because things have causes and conditions, or based on free will which implies a self.
At first glance, it seems to me like saying “free will implies a self” might be like saying “rebirth implies a self.” Just because it seems that way doesn’t make it true. Although I do agree that a truly free will would need a very self-like mechanism to make it work - of course an absolute free will is nonsense, but some kind of conditioned will that experiences degrees of freedom might make sense, even if it doesn’t belong to a self.
My main objection to this line of thinking would be that (according to my understanding) the Buddha never taught hard determinism as such. Rather, the Buddha seems to have emphasized the need for effort, intention, determination (qualities of will). There must be some reason for this!
I don’t think that is right. kammanoridho nibbana.
The Path ends with the complete transcending of Kamma.
Thanks for making me smile, cats are certainly devas (or should I say were in their last lives? ) 
I don’t have any interest in the debate but am just appreciating the levity here and how this comment made me smile as I briefly skim through this thread…
PS I love my kitty Suci; she’s a sweetheart and definitly deva-like (except when she’s being naughty but then I think some devas are at times )
So what you are saying is that you believe that birth circumstance is determined due to an individuals kamma and the support for your belief is scripture?
This reminded me of Suciloma … the demon! Snp2.5 
with metta
To repeat, I’m not looking to prove anything to anyone. That’s all I have to say on the matter and you’re free to think whatever you want about it.
I think the plane of birth is also determined by kamma, according to EBTs. No one has to believe this of course. The reason why I believe in karma, is because it is a good explanation of things that happen in this world. Also I seem to get bad things happening to me in sort of ripples- mini bad things followed by major ones. Also similar patterns of negative experiences keep happening at unconnected points in my life. I assume that this is similar for positive things as well, though not readily apparent, though it could well be now that I think about it.
With metta
I always thought it was because there’s really no other way to teach it. He put those teachings out there so people would hear them and trust in them and do them. It was almost like when he rediscovered the Dhamma and taught it, he was adding a new cause and condition back into the cosmos that would result in however many people reaching awakening before it disappeared again. So teaching about effort and intention was part of that condition. How else can you get people to do something without effort and intention, even though it’s really just processes and there is no will or intention, how could there be will and intention of a selfless process. Rebirth without a self is easy because it’s just the rebirth of a process, but a process having will and effort and intention? That just doesn’t make sense according to their definitions, to truly have will there has to be an agent. You wouldn’t say it was the will or intention of gravity to bring matter toward the ground, it’s just a process, just what it does.
Hi Mat
I agree that according to Sutta birth is determined by kamma. What I find interesting is how individuals relate to the Sutta teaching. Is the belief in kamma determined birth, a matter of faith or logic or a bit of both. Does cultural conditioning play a part? Is there a part of us that wants multiple lives to be a reality and if so why.
But, ah, that’s sūci, not suci
Speaking of Secular buddhism being a misnomer, which I agree with, I prefer this expression (not my invention): YOLO Buddhism. The YOLO belief is the most notable development in modern Buddhism and is something that has not been seen before AFAIK.
Rebirth isn’t scientifically absolutely verifiable, so accepting it is based on each individual person’s requirements of ‘evidence’ for rebirth. I suppose it’s not any different from belief in God in that. One difference I see is that while the terrible things that happen to people cannot be explained by an all powerful God, rebirth has no such clear contradictory factors going against it (except for a solely material perspective, I suppose, but that isn’t really correct as this is a spiritual issue). I was born in a culture where rebirth is ‘believed’ but that doesn’t mean people are brainwashed. There is no problem (except in a spiritual sense) of not believing it. Some do, some don’t. It’s personal. It’s not a CV question, if you understand what I mean. It is more interesting how the balance of faith and logic is struck. People believe the Buddha was a superior intelligence that arose on earth. Spiritually and non-spiritually. They also believe he arose and had compassion for all beings. They have little trouble believing in rebirth because he saw it and taught it out of compassion. They also, do not believe their logic is up to the task of resolving these spiritual issues and are confident in depending on the Buddha’s intelligence and abilities in the matter. However there are many thousands who don’t believe Rebirth, nevertheless.
Heh heh get one chronic illness, bring up some kids, have a crappy boss or partner and you will not want another repeat performance of the same in this life, or the next. Rebirth is seen as a chronic problem rather than Valhalla:
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. When you see someone who is happy & well-provided in life, you should conclude: ‘We, too, have experienced just this sort of thing in the course of that long, long time.’
.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."SN15.12
With metta
As is always, @Dougsmith has a new video today thoughtfully and carefully reviewing a topic anchored in the early texts, yet from a Secular Buddhist perspective: this time, Robert Wright’s Why Buddhism is True
I have found that monastics appear to disagree about reincarnation, Ajahn Sumedho calls it speculation, I would agree with that, mental rebirth in the present moment is a fact, our viewpoints change constantly, I find talk of reincarnation a vanity, and the word vanity is a very important topic on its own.
If viewed in the wrong way, reincarnation/rebirth could be used for the purposes of ego-vanity, especially if you believe in a self. But that could only come from a misunderstanding of the view the Buddha gives: rebirth is a unsatisfactory and actually quite dismal reality of being trapped in samsara.
Saddened, continually, by the tone of this article. Interesting to note this prompt comes up when posting a Reply:
Welcome to Discuss & Discover — thanks for contributing! Before replying, consider whether your reply has the qualities of right speech:
Is it true?
Is it meaningful?
Is it clearly phrased?
Is it pleasing to read?
Does it come from kindness or from anger?Constructive criticism is welcome, but criticize ideas, not people.
For more, see our community guidelines. This panel will only appear for your first 2 posts.
I found this article to miss a few of those wise reminders. Here is my responding article:
http://secularbuddhism.org/2017/09/24/secular-buddhism-divisive_criticism/
Well-reasoned piece Ted. I have some issues with secular Buddhisms, as as I understand them, and briefly touched on a few of those issues above. But I think your position in this piece is right on point.
FWIW, we had that article in post #232… wow, this thread is so long…
Hi Ajahn Sujato–
I’m the author of the book you criticize in this post. I was wondering if you’d like to have a video dialogue with me about “secular Buddhism” on my website meaningoflife.tv. It’s easy–we’d do it by skype–and I think it would be fun and intellectually productive.
Among the people who have had dialogues with me on meaningoflife.tv are Bhikkhu Bodhi, Joseph Goldstein, Shinzen Young, Sharon Salzberg, and, yes, Stephen Batchelor (though I don’t actually use the term ‘secular Buddhism’ to describe my world view–and I don’t share Stephen’s views on the question of what ideas we can and can’t attribute to the Buddha; I’m agnostic on that question).
Best,
Bob Wright