B.G 18.21 and 22

पृथक्त्वेन तु यज्ज्ञानं नानाभावान् पृथग्विधान्। वेत्ति सर्वेषु भूतेषु तज्ज्ञानं विद्धि राजसम् ॥२१॥

But the knowledge that perceives various distinct entities separately in all beings, know that knowledge to be 'rājas' i.e. passionate.

यत्तु कृत्स्नवदेकस्मिन् कार्ये सक्तमहैतुकम्। अतत्त्वार्थवदल्पं च तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥२२॥

That which is done with attachment to a single action, as if it were all-important, without reason, and without understanding the essence, is said to be 'tāmas' i.e. in the mode of ignorance.

Gīta Tātparya 18.21 and 22

The inability to recognize the all-pervading one Lord is considered a characteristic of 'rājasatvam' i.e. passion. Viewing the knowledge of one as complete is indeed 'tāmasam' i.e. ignorance. The knowledge of unity with the complete Brahman, in the form of liberation and other qualities, is considered great darkness due to the obligatory nature and dependence of the limited living being. What then is the knowledge that everything is only that? Knowledge that is devoid of causality is considered ignorance. It is characterized by false imagination arising from the non-distinction between the real and the unreal, and is devoid of true meaning. Thus, 'māyāvāda' i.e. the doctrine of illusion, which attributes the actions of an attached individual to the complete Brahman and conceptualizes truth from imagination born out of little knowledge — must be rejected.

"विष्णोरन्यस्य याथार्थ्यज्ञानं राजसमुच्यते। यदि विष्णुं न जानाति यदि वा मिश्रतत्त्ववित्। अन्यथा करणीयत्वात् कार्याख्यं जीवमेव यः॥

"The understanding of anything devoid of its relation to Lord Vishnu is considered rajasic. If one does not know Lord Vishnu or knows a mixed truth, then due to its destined instrumentality, it is merely action (that leaves further imprints), pertaining only to the living being.

अकार्यं ब्रह्म जानाति स एवाखिलमित्यपि। एकजीवपरिज्ञानात् कृत्स्नज्ञोऽस्मीति मन्यते। युक्तिविज्ञानराहित्यात् स्वपक्षस्याल्पयुक्तितः॥

Brahman knows non-action and indeed knows everything. But the individual living being, through an understanding of only one living being, considers itself omniscient. However, due to the lack of reasoning and knowledge, his own perspective is limited.

अयुक्ततामेव गुणं मन्यते चाल्पदर्शनः। अतत्त्वार्थं जगद् ब्रूते तत्त्वार्थज्ञानवर्जनात्॥

A person with limited understanding mistakes impropriety for virtue and speaks about the world without understanding its true meaning due to a lack of real knowledge.

स मुख्यतामसज्ञानी हि एकैकेनापि किं पुनः। सर्वैरेतैः र्विशेषैश्च युक्तः पापतमाधिकः॥"

He, being primarily ignorant, without knowledge, is indeed affected by each one of these distinctions. Is he not excessively sinful?"

इति पाद्मे।

- stated thus in the Padma Purana.

"पृथक्त्वेन तु यज्ज्ञानं" इत्यस्य व्याख्या "नानाभावान्" इत्यादि।

सर्वगतमेकमीश्वरं न जानातीत्येतावतैव राजसत्वम्। एकस्य कृत्स्नवद् ज्ञानमेव तामसम्।

मुक्तत्वादि रूपेण अन्यथा करणीयत्वात् पराधीनत्वेन अल्पस्यजीवस्य स्वातन्त्र्यादिगुणपूर्णत्वात् कृत्स्नेन ब्रह्मणा ऐक्यज्ञानं च महातामसम्। किं पुनः तावन्मात्रं सर्वमिति ज्ञानम्।

The explanation of "the knowledge which is by separateness" is referred to as "having different conditions" and so forth. The inability to recognize the all-pervading one Lord is considered a characteristic of 'rājasatvam' i.e. passion. Viewing the knowledge of one as complete is indeed 'tāmasam' i.e. ignorance. The knowledge of unity with the complete Brahman, in the form of liberation and other qualities, is considered great darkness due to the obligatory nature and dependence of the limited living being. What then is the knowledge that everything is only that?

किं पुनः तत्रापि एकजीवादन्यत् किमपि नास्तीति। अहैतुकं ज्ञानं सर्वमपि तामसम्।

किमु तदेवोक्त लक्षणम्। अतत्त्वार्थवत् सदसद्वैलक्षण्याद्यन्यथार्थकल्पना युक्तमेव तामसम्।

किमु तदेव उक्तविशेषणैः युक्तम्। प्रायो अल्पज्ञानमपि तामसम्। अज्ञानबहुलत्वात्।

What then about the thinking there exists no other than one living being? Knowledge that is devoid of causality is considered ignorance. What indeed is that characteristic which is said to be associated with darkness? It is characterized by false imagination arising from the non-distinction between the real and the unreal, and is devoid of true meaning. What then about arguing those attributes are indeed mentioned? Generally, even those with a little knowledge are considered ignorant due to the predominance of ignorance.

किमु तदेव उक्तमिथ्याज्ञानबहुलमित्य पुनरुक्तिः। एकस्मिन् सर्ववज्ज्ञानं कार्ये जीवे पूर्ण ब्रह्मेति सक्तं ज्ञानं निर्युक्तिकं च तत्त्वार्थकल्पनायुक्तमल्पज्ञानं च पृथक् पृथक् तामसानीति वा। मायावादे तु एतानि समस्तानि। अन्यत्रापि तु अहैतुकत्वादिकं विरुद्धवादिषु समं सर्वेषु ॥

Is it not said that repetition is abundant with false knowledge? In one, the all-encompassing knowledge - action of the attached individual being as that of complete Brahman born out of false reasoning, and conceptualized truth arising from imagination born out of little knowledge, is again and again stated to be ignorance. However, all these attributes are present in 'māyāvāda' — that is, the doctrine of illusion. In other places too, cause-lessness and similar concepts are equally present in contradictory arguments.