B.S.B. pg.594: Brahman is being studied through the various stated with the help of valid reasoning.

596: Brahman is not to be mixed up with discussion on ritual lest it be confused with something which can be achieved by action i.e. is a result.

The various lights rise and set yet the light of the Self remains.  There is successive elimination.  This is the progress of Upanisadic reasoning to find that which cannot be sublated.  And before that, and before that from the grosser to the finer foods.  Light of the sun to the light of the moom to the light of the fire.  These are the conditions for consciousness which ensure its optimum functioning.  However a light extraneous to the body is there in dreams and in deep sleep "we awake from deep sleep with the remembrence that we slept happily and knew nothing".  This shows that the light of the Self was there.  This is of course other than the light which reveals things and because it is at the culmination of a series of progressively more attenuated states it is inside the body.  This 'inside' will be explicated but in the Upanisadic way it is taken as a starting point.   

     However there is a problem with saying that you have a memory of being in a state of deep sleep.  If you were not conscious when something happened then you can hardly have a memory of it.

     pg.605: That the seer is other than the body.  This view the vedantin holds because there is still awareness even when the body is knocked out as in dream and deep sleep.  This must be seen as a pre-scientific view.  There was no knowledge of cortical centres, memory banks and the like.  I believe that the core intuition can be salvaged however.  Consciousness may irradiate but not be finally identified with brain states.

     Everything is pervaded by consciousness [Satcitananda] and reflects it according to its level of complexity.  The alternative is infusion at some point or other during the process of evolution.  This must be wrong for how can we decide at which point the insertion was made.

     As I remarked before polemics can infect the purity of any doctrine/teaching/philosophy/thought in that the rebuttal may be couched in terms that the other can understand.