B.G 13.22

puruṣaḥ prakṛtistho hi bhuṅkte prakṛtijān guṇān। kāraṇaṃ guṇasaṅgo'sya sadasadyonijanmasu ॥22॥

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.

"puruṣaḥ prakṛtisthaḥ" ityatra puruṣaśabdo jīve। ubhayorapi puruṣaśabdena pūrvaṃ prastutatvāt. yathāyogyaṃ upapatteḥ। kāryakāraṇasambandhaṃ bhogaṃ ca mithyeti vadatāṃ nirākaraṇāyāha - puruṣaḥ prakṛtistho hi iti॥ hi ity-anubhavavirodhaṁ darśayati teṣām।

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.

na hi jñānājñānasukhaduḥkhādiviṣayasya antarānubhavasya bhrāntitvaṃ kvacid dṛṣṭam। na ca asya mithyātve kiñcit mānam। śarīramārabhyaiva hi aparokṣabhramo dṛṣṭaḥ। tatrāpi balavatpramāṇavirodhādeva bhrāntitvaṃ kalpyam। sākṣisiddhasyāpi bhrāntitvāṅgīkāre yena sarvasya bhrāntitvamabhrāntitvaṃ ātmanaḥ avagataṃ tadapi pramāṇamātmaiva। vyavahāratopi astītyatra pramāṇābhāvāt bhrāntirabhrāntirvā na kiñcit siddhyati।

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.

anubhavo bhrānta ityukte bhrāntitve pramāṇaṃ tatprāmāṇyaṃ ca kutaḥ siddhyāt। vyavahārataḥ sarvamaṅgīkurma ityukte vyavahāro vyavahartā ca kutaḥ siddhaḥ। pratītita ityukte saiva kutaḥ। svataḥ ityukte svasya bhrāntitve pratītiṃ vinaiva pratītirastīti bhrāntiḥ syāt।

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)?

svābhāvopi syāt. svayamastīti ca bhramaḥ syāt. nirālambano bhramaḥ nopapadyate ityasyāpi bhramatvopapatteḥ. tatpramāṇamapi apramāṇameva. pramāṇatvabhrama iti na kiñcit siddhyati. bhrama ityasyaiva bhramatve anyasya abhramatvameva bhavati.

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.

sukhaduḥkhādiviṣayaṃ jñānamātmasvarūpameveti tasya bhramatve chadmanā vinaiva śūnyavādo bhavati. na hi vṛttijñānaviṣayamajñānādikaṃ teṣāmapi. bhramasya ca avidyākāryatvāṅgīkārāt. ātmasvarūpasyāpi avidyākāryatvaṃ syāt.

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.

durghaṭatvaṃ bhūṣaṇamityukte durghaṭatvaṃ sughaṭatvaṃ ca ubhayaṃ bhūṣaṇamasmākamityuttaram। na hi pramāṇasiddhasya durghaṭatve sughaṭatve vā vāpavādo dṛṣṭaḥ। durghaṭatvaṃ bhūṣaṇamiti vadadbhiḥ ātmano'pi avidyātvamaṅgīkṛtya tadayuktamityukte tatra'pi bhūṣaṇatvaṃ kimiti nāṅgīkriyate। atisukaratvāt। na ca ātmano'pi avidyātvaṃ vadatāṃ teṣāmuttaram। ato'nantadoṣaduṣṭatvāt hi iti prasiddhyaiva bhagavatā nirākṛtāḥ ॥22॥

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.