Here are the definitions for the word ‘experience’ in Chamber’s dictionary:

All of these necessitate an ‘experiencer’ and an ‘experienced’ ‘thing’.

Brahman is the non-dual reality. How could Brahman be ‘experienced’? Who would be the ‘experiencer’?

Samādhi is a ‘state’ of consciousness. There is only turīya in reality – no ‘states’.

Since there is only Brahman, ‘we’ are already Brahman. The problem is that we do not ‘know’ this with certainty. Accordingly, nothing that we could do will bring this about. As has been pointed out (e.g. Rambachan), this would be ‘attaining the already attained’. It is Self-knowledge only that is required, not any ‘action’.

These simple (and indisputable for the Advaitin) facts should make the discussion about the ‘need to experience Brahman in samādhi’ totally redundant.

Incidentally, if someone wants to point out that anubhava does not mean ‘experience’, why does everyone keep using that word? What word should they use instead? Words such as ‘intuition’ still require an ‘intuiter’ and an ‘intuited’ thing.

(The above is a post to Advaitin List I just made following a discussion about use of the word samādhi in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi.)