If it were merely by accident that the light emerged from one aperture rather than any other, we could say that the light is not subject to the vessel – on the contrary, it would be free of all subjection. If that were the case, as long as the light is contained within the vessel, it could function within the constraints of the particular vessel in which it is contained. In that case, even though the light itself might be intrinsically unchanged, its action would change through being subject to the constraints of the vessel, as discussed earlier in connection with the Line and the Residue (see Opening 28).
However, on breaking through and passing out, it should lose that subjection and act like the soul outside the body. But having said that the light passes out through a given vessel because of the specific relationship it has with that vessel, we must infer that even after its emergence, the light remains subject to the vessel – because it would not have been able to pass out through a different vessel.
Even after passing out, this does not mean that it becomes free of all subjection to the vessel. On the contrary, the very nature of the vessel in question is to serve as a vessel of exit, as discussed earlier in connection with container vessels and exit vessels (see Opening 32, Part 1). This being the case, the light performs only the function of the vessel itself, and its functioning changes as if it were acting within the container vessel itself.