[KRbGA0Bg]

I probably should have worded it differently, Abhaya. And yes, Esho, I realise what I had said, and he did indeed give his opinion, but then I asked if an alternative could also be correct, and he never answered it, but ignored it entirely. And i'm not entirely sure what your trying to say. Personally, when I say mind, I mean the personality, what is transferred supposedly, not the object of the mind, or 'what is the mind?'. And yes, a property of brain functioning. The mind results from the brain, IMO, and that of everyday science.

The influence was in reference as to what the Buddha had meant in that analogy. And again, no idea what you are talking about. I have influenced my sisters, my mother, my step father, and they me, just by their words and actions. That is what is meant by influence. And continued influence would be Grandfather to father, to son, as well as the writings of great minds today.

"The case of the flame is just about the rise of temperature that provokes the other flame to "appear". If you keep at a distance both candles the one will never light the other."

Again, no idea. Just being honest. But I disagree nonetheless with the interpretation. That is your own right though. Again, I never meant to attack theseeking1, just simply had a hard time trying to get him to answer a question. In the end, we will most likely all leave here with our own viewpoints.