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||


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||


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?

  • Well, 2.45 is talking about literal wealth and 9.22 is talking about spiritual wealth. Obviously a word can have different connotations in different contexts. Commented Jul 7, 2016 at 19:15
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I know that a word can have different meanings in different contexts but, I am asking if we can interpret the philosophical verse little bit materialistically so as to comfort us in situation of great depression or something similar to war .
    – Yogi
    Commented Jul 7, 2016 at 19:35
  • Well, this particular verse is not about material prosperity, but there are certainly other scriptural passages that discuss Sriman Narayana taking care of the material needs of his devotees. Gaudiya Vaishnavas even interpret one of the Sutras of the Brahma Sutras as discussing that very notion: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/11331/36 Now I disagree with their interpretation of that Sutra, but that notion certainly has a basis in Hindu scripture. Commented Jul 7, 2016 at 19:43
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Forget comforting in depression and all, but what is the problem with the materialistic interpretation does that interpretation becomes invalid in any sense?
    – Yogi
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 1:08
  • Well, the thing is that if you look at the context of the verse, the previous verse is talking about the consequence of worshiping other gods being repeated rebirth, and then this verse is talking about the consequence of devotion to Sriman Narayana being Moksha. Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 1:58

2 Answers 2


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.


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.

  • 1
    @lamtheone - Welcome to Hinduism SE. It is customary on this site to give long answers that provide some explanation .If possible pls. explain your answer more broadly. Thank You . Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 18:54
  • Hi, Its self explanatory but i'll try yo elaborate.
    – Iamtheone
    Commented Jul 19, 2016 at 9:28
  • @SwiftPushkar There is no such custom. Even if a small answer adds a good source from scriptures and a good small explanation it may be selected as a good explanation.
    – Yogi
    Commented Jul 19, 2016 at 12:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .