B.G 13.22

पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान् गुणान्। कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु ॥२२॥

Indeed, the being residing in Prakṛti experiences the qualities that arise from Prakṛti. His attachment to these qualities is the reason for his birth in favourable and unfavourable wombs.

Gīta Tātparya 13.22

The term 'Puruṣa' in the current verse refers only to the individual being, though it is used for both the individual being and the lord previously. The contact of the individual being with material Prakrti alone doesn't result in joy or misery. It is his attachment to qualities born out of ignorance (avidyā) that results in joy and misery. Thus, knowledge, and the capacity to observe, i.e. to be a witness, are innate attributes of the individual being.
The word 'hi' — i.e. indeed, in the context has special significance, providing experiential knowledge that the individual is situated within Prakrti. This experiential knowledge offers the ultimate, undeniable proof. This firmly rejects the maya-vada, the doctrine of the world being an illusion. The internal experience emanating from knowledge, ignorance, happiness, and sorrow does not indicate an illusion of the world at any point in time. There is no proof of its falsity. Starting from the physical body only experience of direct perception and illusion are observed. Even there, illusions are recognised when there is a strong contradiction in evidence. Through the establishment of witness alone, it is possible to accept illusion by differentiating it from non-illusion. The capacity to observe — the witness — also establishes the existence of individual being.

"पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थः" इत्यत्र पुरुषशब्दो जीवे। उभयोरपि पुरुषशब्देन पूर्वं प्रस्तुतत्वात्। यथायोग्यं उपपत्तेः। कार्यकारणसम्बन्धं भोगं च मिथ्येति वदतां निराकरणायाह - पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि इति॥ हि इत्यनुभवविरोधं दर्शयति तेषाम्।

The term 'Puruṣa' in the phrase "man situated in nature" refers to the individual being. It is used for both (indiavidual being and the supreme Lord), as it was previously presented in this manner. This is appropriate for reasoning as well. To reject the argument that "the connection between action and agency, in terms of material body, results in enjoyment," is false, it is stated that the person is "indeed" (hi) situated within the 'Prakrti', the insentient matter. The word 'hi', i.e. indeed, shows the contradiction in experience for them.

न हि ज्ञानाज्ञानसुखदुःखादिविषयस्य अन्तरानुभवस्य भ्रान्तित्वं क्वचिद् दृष्टम्। न च अस्य मिथ्यात्वे किञ्चित् मानम्। शरीरमारभ्यैव हि अपरोक्षभ्रमो दृष्टः। तत्रापि बलवत्प्रमाणविरोधादेव भ्रान्तित्वं कल्प्यम्। साक्षिसिद्धस्यापि भ्रान्तित्वाङ्गीकारे येन सर्वस्य भ्रान्तित्वमभ्रान्तित्वं आत्मनः अवगतं तदपि प्रमाणमात्मैव। व्यवहारतोपि अस्तीत्यत्र प्रमाणाभावात् भ्रान्तिरभ्रान्तिर्वा न किञ्चित् सिद्ध्यति।

The internal experience emanating from knowledge, ignorance, happiness, and sorrow does not indicate an illusion of the world at any point in time. There is no proof of its falsity. Starting from the physical body only experience of direct perception and illusion are observed. Even there, illusions are recognised when there is a strong contradiction in evidence. Through the establishment of witness alone, the acceptance of the illusion by deciphering non-illusion from illusion is possible by the individual being; also establishing the existence of individual being. In practical terms also, due to the absence of evidence, neither illusion nor non-illusion can be established.

अनुभवो भ्रान्त इत्युक्ते भ्रान्तित्वे प्रमाणं तत्प्रामाण्यं च कुतः सिद्ध्यात्। व्यवहारतः सर्वमङ्गीकुर्म इत्युक्ते व्यवहारो व्यवहर्ता च कुतः सिद्धः। प्रतीतित इत्युक्ते सैव कुतः। स्वतः इत्युक्ते स्वस्य भ्रान्तित्वे प्रतीतिं विनैव प्रतीतिरस्तीति भ्रान्तिः स्यात्।

If it is said that experience is deluded, how can the proof and authenticity of that delusion be established (without the observing witness)? If it is said that we accept everything based on worldly transactions, how are worldly transactions and the person who transacts established (without the observing witness)? If it is said from perception, how is that alone established? If it is said from oneself, how can a perception exist that perceives one's own delusion, if perception always leads to delusion (without the observing witness)?

स्वाभावोपि स्यात्। स्वयमस्तीति च भ्रमः स्यात्। निरालम्बनो भ्रमः नोपपद्यते इत्यस्यापि भ्रमत्वोपपत्तेः। तत्प्रमाणमपि अप्रमाणमेव। प्रमाणत्वभ्रम इति न किञ्चित् सिद्ध्यति। भ्रम इत्यस्यैव भ्रमत्वे अन्यस्य अभ्रमत्वमेव भवति।

In that case, the innate nature may also be (termed delusional). "I exist" can also be termed delusional. Then one cannot differentiate between an unsupported delusion from that of supported delusion. Indeed, any proof becomes non-proof. Terming proof as illusion does not establish anything. It leads to infinite regress.

सुखदुःखादिविषयं ज्ञानमात्मस्वरूपमेवेति तस्य भ्रमत्वे छद्मना विनैव शून्यवादो भवति। न हि वृत्तिज्ञानविषयमज्ञानादिकं तेषामपि। भ्रमस्य च अविद्याकार्यत्वाङ्गीकारात्। आत्मस्वरूपस्यापि अविद्याकार्यत्वं स्यात्।

The knowledge concerning the experiences of happiness and sorrow is essentially the true nature of the ātman. However, terming that knowledge as delusional leads to 'śūnyavādaḥ', i.e. "nothing exists", i.e. nihilism, by deception. Indeed, from such a hypothesis, not even subjective knowledge can be differentiated from ignorance. If you accept illusion as a product of ignorance, then even the true nature of the ātman must be considered as a product of ignorance.

दुर्घटत्वं भूषणमित्युक्ते दुर्घटत्वं सुघटत्वं च उभयं भूषणमस्माकमित्युत्तरम्। न हि प्रमाणसिद्धस्य दुर्घटत्वे सुघटत्वे वा वापवादो दृष्टः। दुर्घटत्वं भूषणमिति वदद्भिः आत्मनोऽपि अविद्यात्वमङ्गीकृत्य तदयुक्तमित्युक्ते तत्रापि भूषणत्वं किमिति नाङ्गीक्रियते। अतिसुकरत्वात्। न च आत्मनोऽपि अविद्यात्वं वदतां तेषामुत्तरम्। अतोऽनन्तदोषदुष्टत्वात् हि इति प्रसिद्ध्यैव भगवता निराकृताः ॥२२॥

When it is claimed that "difficult to achieve attribute" is an ornament, then it is implied that both difficult and ease serve as ornaments. There are no instances of valid proofs contradicting such a hypothesis. Similarly, even while accepting ignorance (avidyā) as an attribute of 'ātman', i.e. individual being, it is not considered as an ornament. It is not desirable to have ignorance (avidyā) as an attribute, just as 'ease' is not mentioned as an ornament. It does not resolve the claimed assertion, "The individual being is of the nature of ignorance (avidyā)". Therefore, due to infinite faults, the word 'hi', i.e. indeed, is used famously by the lord to dismiss such arguments.