Individuality vs rebirth
The flame analogy is not logical to me since, to me, a flame must depend on the fuel &amp; wick, similar to how the mind must depend on the physical body &amp; food. Imo, a flame cannot be 'disembodied', just as a mind cannot be disembodied. For example, when sparks spread fire (say in a forest fire), the sparks of fire are attached to some physical matter, such as leaves. 

Similarly, the Pali suttas appear to state in many places (such a MN 38, SN 22.53 &amp; SN 12.67) that there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body &amp; sense organs. 

I have only read about a dozen or so places in the Pali suttas from around 8,000 suttas that teach about literal reincarnation (eg. AN 3.15, MN 143, MN 50, MN 81, etc). Since these contradict the main teachings, particularly SN 22.79 (which is about 'past dwellings' rather than 'past lives' &amp; states all recollections of the past are not a 'self'), the impression arises these literal reincarnation suttas are later additions rather than the words of the Buddha. 

The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth' or 'rebirth'. 

The impression of Buddhism I have is, as Buddhism grew in India, the clergy, keen to expand Buddhism, introduced reincarnation teachings (which are very appealing to many people), the most prominent being the Jataka Tales about the Buddha's past lives &amp; similar suttas in the Digha Nikaya.

On face value, my personal view is the core teachings of the Buddha do not include life-to-life physical rebirth.