EBTs and momentariness

Yes, and maybe this is also indicated by a fragment in a sutta (at the moment i do not know the one) in which the Buddha refutes the view of someone that it is this conscious in this life that goes on in the next life? It seems to indicatie that we must not see consciousness as a continuum.

Next to this i feel it is still questionable what Buddha meant with vinnana. Is that dependend on context? For example, has vinnana as 3-th factor in PS really the same meaning as in sense-vinnana?
Is vinnana just a bare awareness of a sense object or does it involve much more such as also all kinds of associations one has with a sense object, expactations, feelings, memories, meaning an object has for oneself, that kind of things.

You’re probably referring to the following sutta:

Now at that time a mendicant called Sāti, the fisherman’s son, had the following harmful misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
MN 38

I remember listening somewhere that this sutta means that we don’t have a constant and permanent consciousness transmigrating (which would be tantamount to having a soul), but rather that we have a stream of consciousness that transmigrates.

Maybe the following suttas are helpful:

And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
SN 12.2 (dependent origination)

Any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of consciousness.
SN 22.48

It seems that consciousness involves at least perception and feeling too:

Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.
MN 43