I agree it would be...but that's not what I said. I said taking refuge and vowing to keep one or more of the 5 lay training rules are not identical things. If such was not the case, then it would be impossible for people choose to take one, some or none of the lay vows.It is splitting hairs if you say that only the refuge vow continues and the precepts do not. It seems illogical also.
I agree. You seem to be conflating morality and the training rules of the vinaya, the pratimoksha. The training rules came gradually into existence as circumstances warranted them. Once a member of the Sangha behaved in a way that was deemed unwise, the Buddha made a training rule so that from then on, the Sangha would know that that action or deed was inappropriate. When a person becomes a monastic, they vow to abide by and follow these training rules for this life. The vows are there to help develop and shape morality in the monastic (and hence provide the bedrock for the development of concentration, wisdom, loving kindness etc.), they are not morality.A misunderstanding has crept in some where.
No, I disagree. Ethical vows are not similar to any other habits that you form. The habitual tendencies shaped by those training rules that you have vowed to follow for this life continue, not the vows.Ethical vows are similar to any other habits that you form during your present life (and in past and future lives). Habits get gradually stored in the alaya-consciousness, and they will appear again in the future life or future lives. Habitual tendencies are not lost at death. This applies to the vows also.
You seem to be absurdly suggesting, that if a monastic gives back their vows, they would lose all of their morality because morality and the training vows are the same thing.