B.G 13.24

य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणैः सह। सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि न स भूयोऽभिजायते ॥२४॥

One who understands the Supreme Person, the being, and the Prakrti along with their qualities, despite being engaged in all ways, is not reborn.

Gīta Bhāshya 13.24

The ordinary being is described as 'puruṣaḥ sukhaduḥkhānām', i.e. person of happiness and sorrow in 13.21. The Lord and the ordinary beings are addressed together in the phrase 'puruṣaṃ prakṛtim', in the current verse. Not interpreting this way will result in a contradiction.
Denying the existence of reality and equating the identity of a living being with that of the Lord are not the right interpretations. Same is substantiated by quoting Brahma sutras and supporting Vedic scriptures. The words 'aikyam', i.e. merging with, 'ābhāsa', i.e. reflective appearance, 'pratibimbatva', i.e. reflection - analogies are explained providing context. To merge with the Lord is the goal. It is the same as realising the self as subservient to the Lord. The realization of 'I belong to Him' is described as 'ahaṅgrahaḥ'. Here, the word 'aikyam' i.e merger, means the worshipper attaining similarity and proximity to the Lord. The analogy of reflection portrays the thought that "I am similar, and also I am subservient". Because servants are under a master's control, they say, 'He is I'; it does not mean they are the same.

"पुरुषः सुखदुःखानाम्" इति जीव उक्तः। "पुरुषं प्रकृतिम्" इति जीवेश्वरौ सहैव उच्येते। अन्यत्र महातात्पर्यविरोधः। उत्कर्षे हि महातात्पर्यम्। तथाहि सौकरायणश्रुतिः -

The ordinary being is described as 'puruṣaḥ sukhaduḥkhānām', i.e. person of happiness and sorrow (13.21). The Lord and the ordinary beings are addressed together in the phrase 'puruṣaṃ prakṛtim'. Not interpreting this way will result in a contradiction to greater purport being conveyed. Praising the excellence (of the Lord) is always the greater purport. Same is stated in the Saukarayana scripture:

"अवाच्योत्कर्षे महत्त्वात् सर्ववाचां सर्वन्यायानां च महत्तत्परत्वम्। विष्णोरनन्तस्य परात्परस्य तच्चापि ह्यस्त्येव न चात्र शङ्का॥

"All the words and all the principles convey the unspeakable excellence, greatness, the infinite, the supreme beyond the supreme nature of the Lord Vishnu, and there is no doubt about this.

अतो विरुद्धं तु यदत्र मानं तदक्षजादावथवापि युक्तिः। न तत् प्रमाणं कवयो वदन्ति न चापि युक्तिर्ह्यूनमतिर्हि दृष्टेः॥"

Therefore, the wise say that the contradictory measure here, whether derived from the senses or logic, is not considered proof, as it is the logic perceived by an inferior mind."

इति।

- stated thus.

अतो युक्तिभिरपि एतदपलापो न युक्तः। अतो यया युक्त्या अविद्यमानत्वादि कल्पयति सापि आभासरूपेति सदेव माहात्म्यं वेदैरुच्यते इति सिद्ध्यति।

Therefore, even by arguments, this denial (of the reality of existence) is inappropriate. The argument by which one imagines non-existence and other such things is also just an imagination. It is well established, the Vedas only proclaim His greatness.

अवान्तरं च तात्पर्यं तत्रास्ति। उक्तं च तत्रैव-

There is an intermediate meaning that is applicable as well. It is stated as follows:

"अवान्तरं तत्परत्वं च सत्त्वे महद्वाप्येकत्वात्तयोरनन्ते।"

"The intermediate interpretation and the principle describing reality - both describe the one principle only that is beyond, because of its greatness and infiniteness."

इति।

- stated thus.

श्यामत्वाद्यभिधानाच्च। युक्तं च पुरुषमतिकल्पितयुक्त्यादेः आभासत्वम्। अज्ञानसम्भवात्। न तु स्वतः प्रमाणस्य वेदस्य आभासत्वम्। अदर्शनं च सम्भवत्येव। पुंसां बहूनामपि अज्ञानात्। तर्ह्यस्मदनधीतश्रुत्यादौ विपर्ययोपि स्यादिति न वाच्यम्। यतः तत्रैवाह -

His attributes have been already declared in the testimonial 'śyāmatvāt' (12.1- dark-hued, he is in the heart, eight-armed, of infinite strength, endless power, the Ancient One). It is appropriate to consider as appearance (ābhāsa), that which is reasoned and imagined by the mind of the person. It is possible that it is associated with ignorance (ajñāna). Thus, it cannot, by itself, be considered as authority when it is contrary to the Vedas, because of mere appearance. Indeed, it is possible that it (i.e. the subject of discussion) has not come into view. Larger populations, in general, are ignorant. Therefore, it should not be said that contradictions might exist in our unstudied scriptures that have existed from time immemorial. Indeed, it is stated:

"नैतद्विरुद्धा वाचो नैतद्विरुद्धा युक्तयः इति ह प्रजापतिरुवाच।"

"Prajapati said, - 'These words are not contradictory, these arguments are not contradictory'."

इति।

- stated thus.

तद्विरुद्धं च जीवसाम्यम्।

Equating the identity of a living being (with the Brahman) is contradictory to that (Vedas) as well.

"आभास एव च" - इति चोक्तम्।

It is said, "Indeed, it (i.e. the living being) is merely an 'ābhāsa', i.e. reflection (of the lord)." (Br.Su 2.3.50)

"जनमेजय उवाच -

"Janamejaya said -

बहवः पुरुषा ब्रह्मन् उताहो एक एव तु। को ह्यत्र पुरुषश्रेष्ठः तम् भवान् वक्तुमर्हति।

O Sage, are there many men, or is there only one? Who is the best of the men here? You should speak about him.

श्रि वैशंपायन उवाच -

Revered Vaiśaṁpāyana spoke -

नैतदिच्छन्ति पुरुषं एकं कुरुकुलोद्भव। बहूनां पुरुषाणां हि यथैका योनिरुच्यते। तथा तं पुरुषं विश्वमाख्यास्यामि गुणाधिकम्॥

O One born in the Kuru dynasty, "the being (Puruṣa) is One" - is not the desired argument. Indeed, many are the beings (Puruṣas), born from a single womb. Among all the several beings in the universe, I shall declare to you about One Being (Purusha) who is superior in qualities."

इति मोक्षधर्मे।

- stated thus in the Moksha Dharma section (of the Mahabharata).

न च तत्सर्वं स्वप्नेन्द्रजालवत्।

Not everything is an illusion, like that in a dream.

"वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत्"

इति हि भगवद्वचनम्।

- as stated by the Lord (Vyāsa) himself (in Br.Su 2.2.29)

न च स्वप्नवत् एकजीवकल्पितत्वे मानं पश्यामः। विपर्यये माश्चोक्ता द्वितीये। उक्तं च आयास्यशाखायाम् -

And we do not perceive any evidence that supports the idea that everything is imagined by a single being, as if in a dream. On the contrary, we have given substantiation in the second chapter to the contrary. It is also stated in the Ayasya branch of the Vedas:

"स्वप्नो ह वा अयं चञ्चलत्वान्न च स्वप्नो न हि विच्छेदो एतदिति॥"

"This (the world) is indeed stated as a dream due to its restlessness, but is not a dream, as there is no interruption here."

इति।

- stated thus.

नायं दोषः। न हि ईश्वरस्य जीवैक्यम् उच्यते। जीवस्य हि ईश्वरैक्यं ध्येयम्। तदपि न निरुपाधिकम्। अतो न प्रतिबिम्बत्वस्य विरोधि ऐक्यम्। तथा हि माधुच्छन्दसश्रुतिः -

The statement (i.e. 'ahaṁ brahmāsmi') is not a defect. It does not state the unity of identity of the being with the Lord. To become one with the Lord is the goal. That too is not without conditions. Therefore, the "concept of reflection" (pratibimbatva) is not opposed to the concept of "merging with" (aikyam). Indeed, same is the teaching of the Vedic testimonial from Mādhucchandas:

"ऐक्यं चापि प्रातिबिम्ब्येन विष्णोः र्जीवस्यैतद्रुषयो वदन्ति।"

"The sages see - the merging of the being with the Lord Vishnu, same as realising the self as a reflected image of the Lord."

इति।

- stated thus.

अहङ्ग्रहोपासने च फलाधिक्यं अग्निवेश्यश्रुतिसिद्धम् -

The teachings of Agniveshya establish abundance of results in the practice of meditating on the identity of the self (who am I?):

"अहङ्ग्रहोपासकस्तस्य साम्यं अभ्याशो ह वा अश्नुते नात्र शङ्का।"

"The worshipper who meditates on the self-identity (who am I?) attains similarity and proximity to it (the Lord); there is no doubt about this."

इति।

- stated thus.

"तदीयोऽहमिति ज्ञानमहङ्ग्रह इतीरितः।"

"The realization of 'I belong to Him' is described as 'ahaṅgrahaḥ'".

इति वामने।

- stated thus in the Vamana Purana.

"तद्वशत्वात् तु सोऽस्मीति भृत्यैरेव न तु स्वतः॥"

"Because servants are under his (master's) control, they say, 'He is I'; it does not mean they are the same."

इति च।

- stated thus as well.

प्रातिबिम्ब्येन सोऽस्मि भृत्यश्च इति भावना। तथा हि अयास्य शाखायाम् -

The analogy of reflection portrays the thought that "I am similar, and also I am subservient". Same is stated in the Ayāsya branch of the Vedas:

"भृत्यश्चाहं प्रातिबिम्ब्येन सोस्मीत्येवं ह्युपास्यः परमः पुमान् सः॥"

" 'The servant and I, by reflection, am he;' - indeed, this way, he is to be worshipped as the supreme person."

इति।

- stated thus.

प्रातिबिम्ब्यं च तत्साम्यमेव ॥२४॥

The analogy of reflection depicts nothing but similarity to it (the Lord).

Gīta Tātparya 13.24

The one who knows and sees properly the two-fold 'puruṣa' along with two-fold 'prakṛti', and their various qualities is liberated.

"द्विविधं पुरुषं चैव प्रकृतिं द्विविधामपि। सह तत्तद्गुणैः सम्यग् ज्ञात्वा पश्यति यः पुमान्। सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि न स भूयोऽभिजायते॥"

"The one who knows and sees properly the two-fold 'puruṣa' along with two-fold 'prakṛti', and their various qualities, though existing in everyway, is liberated and is not born again."

Note: Two types of 'puruṣa' are: The lord and the ordinary being. Two types of Prakrti are: Chit-Prakrti, i.e. the consciousness behind the insentient and Jada-Prakrti, i.e. the insentient.