Shankara did NOT say such a thing. In many places he discusses the benefits of yogic meditation. However, the benefits according to Shankara are "purification of the heart" rather than either "union with brahman" or "freedom from bondage to prakriti".
The purpose of the post was to examine the real but unstated differences between the "recognition/practice" found in Yoga and Vedanta rather than a polemic against TM. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > that means that meditation like what marshy taught was essentially a meaningless pursuit. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: emptybill emptybill@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:45 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] What Maharishi did NOT say ... > > > >  > Since the 14th Century, (i.e. with Shankaracharya Vidyaranya), the Indian understanding of Advaita has has gradually degraded until "Yogic" advaita has become the norm. It manifested in the idea that "transcendence" or nirvikalpa-samaadhi was the experiential requirement for brahma-jñana (knowledge of brahmâtman). > > This notion is directly adverse to Adi Shankara's written declarations about liberation: > Upadesasahasri > Shankara did not > extol yogic nirvikalpa-samaadhi (non-conceptual absorption or transcendence). > Rather, speaking from the understanding that the Self (Atman) is already > nirvikalpa by nature, he firmly contrasts the true nature of the Self and the > mind: > As > I have no restlessness (viksepa) > I have hence no absorption (samadhi). Restlessness or absorption belong to the > mind which is changeable. >  > A similar view > is expressed in 13.17: >  > How > can samadhi, non-samadhi or anything else which is to be done belong to me? For > having meditated and known me, they realize that they have completed [all] that > needed to be done. >  > and 14.35: >  > I > have never seen "non-samadhi", nor anything else [needing] to be purified, belonging > to me who am changeless, the pure Brahman, free from evil. >  >  In 15.14 Sankara presents a critique of > meditation as an essentially dualistically structured activity: >  > One > [comes] to consist of that upon which one fixes one's mind, if one is different > from [it]. But, there is no action in the Self through which to become the > Self. [It] does not depend upon [anything else] for being the Self, since if > [it] depended upon [anything else], it would not be the Self.  >  > Furthermore, > in 16.39-40, Sankara implicitly criticizes the Sankhya-Yoga view that > liberation is dissociation from the association of purusa and prakrti, when he > says: > It > is not at all reasonable that liberation is either a connection [with Brahman] > or a dissociation [from prakrti]. For an association is non-eternal and the > same is true for dissociation also. One's own nature is never lost. > As is > evident in his writings, Sankara implicitly rejects both the emancipation of > yoga, namely, that liberation has to be accomplished through the real > dissociation of the purusa from prakrti, and the yogic pursuit towards that > end, -  that is, the achievement of > nirvikalpa or asamprajata-samadhi (transcendence). > > Read it and weep. >
