[voksveta]

You have to read more than one line. The Buddha also disagrees here:

Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

But again, the problem here is not kamma and rebirth. The problem is that Sati has fallen into one of the two extremes rejected by the Buddha: namely, that the one who experiences the result of kamma is the same as the one who produced the kamma. The Buddha discusses this in the Aññatra Sutta:

In the Buddha's teaching, an instance of consciousness arises and fades away, never to "re-appear" again.

True, but each instance of consciousness conditions a succeeding instance of consciousness; thus there is continuity. Otherwise our experiences would be very strange indeed.

Making consciousness an Atman, the very sort of homunculus argument that the Buddha is refuting here. The Buddha never described vinnana like that. You are simply regurgitating Sati's heresy yourself. I have made no such argument -- quite the opposite. The point is that an Atman is unnecessary. You seem to be arguing that kamma/rebirth can only be explained in terms of an Atman or homunculus -- a stance which contradicts the Buddha's presentation of the Middle Way.