Why does 'Yogakshema' word has different context in BG 2.45 and BG 9.22

Question

Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2 verse 45:

त्रैगुण्य विषया वेदा: निस्त्रैगुण्यो भवार्जुन | निर्द्वन्दो नित्य सत्वस्थो निर्योग क्षेम आत्मवान ||2.45||

trai-gunya visaya veda nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna | nir-dwando nitya satvastho nir-yoga kshema atmavan||2.45||

Meaning

The Vedas deal with the three Modes of Material Nature (Guṇas), O Arjuna. You must free yourself from these three Guṇas and from the pairs of opposites. Abide in pure Sattva; never care to acquire things and to protect what has been acquired(this is yogaksheama part), but be established in the ātman.

Source : Bhagwad Ramanujacharya's commentry.

Bhagwad Gita Chapter 9 verse 22 :

अनन्यस्चिन्तयन्तो मां ये जना: पर्युपासते | तेषां नित्याभियुक्तानां योगक्षेमं वहाम्यहम् ||9.22||

ananyaschintayanto mam ye janaha paryupasate | tesham nityabhiyuktanam yoga-kshemam vahamyaham||9.22||

Meaning

There are those who, not being mindful of anything else, adore Me alone, aspiring after eternal union with Me. I Myself take charge of their prosperity and welfare (Yoga and Kṣema).

Further Commentary on the Verse by Bhagwad Ramanujacharya:

Those who, excluding everything else and having no other purpose, meditate on Me as their only goal, because without Me they are unable to sustain themselves. In the case of such devotees aspiring after eternal unification with Me, I Myself undertake the responsibility of bringing them to Myself —Yoga (prosperity) and of preserving them in that state for ever — Kṣema (welfare)." The meaning is that they do not return to Samsara.

Why is 2.45 talking in material context , while 9.22 is talking in a totally different Philosophical context?

If 9.22 is analyzed in a little bit materialistic context we can say that for an Anayabhakta(who is fully devoted to lord and doesn't do anything else, not even for his own livelihood) Shriman Narayan supreme Bramhan himself looks for/handles his livelihood and bhakta's wealth preservation (any type of wealth).

But seeing the pure philosophical commentry I think there is not material aspect in 9.22. While 2.45 has material aspect because it is talking about three gunas which are material in nature.

So what is more correct interpretation of 9.22 and 2.45 with yogakshema. Is material interpretation of 9.22 wrong or greedy because if analyzed materialistically it is more of an assurance or faith strengthening verse?

Answer 1

In simple term, gaining the things (that is not achieved yet) is called yog (योग) and protecting the things that is earned is called kshem (क्षेम).

The reason why should be interpreted differently:

The verses around 2.45 deals with those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence. For those people the things to gain are more and more material wealth & pleasure and things to preserve are the earned material things and related pleasure.

But the verse 9.22 deals with devotees who worship Kṛṣṇa. As those people are engaged in devotional service, i.e are surrendering fully to the Lord, they deserve or the thing to gain is (association with) God and Lord protects this devotion of those person to Lord and protect them failing down to samsara.

Hence, योगक्षेम in 2.45 is interpreted as gaining and preserving material wealth and related pleasure whereas in 9.22 योगक्षेम is attaining God-devotion/consciousness/realization and protecting from miserable samsara.

Due to this difference Krishna ask to be free from such योगक्षेम (discussed in 2.45) for whose karma is sakam (सकाम) and ask to निर्योगक्षेम. And ensures the योगक्षेम (discussed in 9.22) by Krishna for devotees.

Also read purport from vedabase 2.45 and 9.22.

Answer 2

There is no different context & no contradiction.

1) 2.45 says don't you care for yogkshema while being aatmavaan.

2) 9.22 says I take care of it for you. If you are fixated in me.