MR

 Morphic resonance is a hypothesis proposed by Rupert Sheldrake that patterns in nature are influenced by similar past patterns through a kind of non-local memory.

In his view:

• Systems inherit form and behavior not only through genes or physical causes
• They also resonate with previous similar systems
• The more often something happens, the easier it becomes for it to happen again

So “like influences like” across time and space.

The core idea in one sentence

Morphic resonance = past patterns influence present patterns through similarity, not physical contact.

Examples Sheldrake often uses

• Rats learning mazes faster after other rats already learned them elsewhere
• Crystals forming more easily once first synthesized
• Animals anticipating owners’ return home
• Telepathy-like experiences in close relationships

He interprets these as:

a field of memory forming around repeated forms or behaviors

He also connects this to morphic fields, which are supposed organizing fields that:

• shape biological form
• guide instinct
• store collective memory
• enable telepathy

Morphic resonance is the process; morphic fields are the structure.

Important: scientific status

Morphic resonance is not accepted in mainstream science because:

• no known physical mechanism
• experimental evidence is disputed or not reproducible
• it conflicts with established biology and neuroscience

So it’s considered a speculative hypothesis, not an established theory.

How it differs from normal memory

• Brain memory: stored in neural connections
• Genetic inheritance: stored in DNA
• Morphic resonance: stored in nature itself, accessed by similarity

That last claim is the controversial part.

AB. RS

 Here’s a clean side-by-side of how Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas compare with classical Advaita Vedānta and Buddhist thought (especially the kind behind the “second arrow” teaching often attributed to Gautama Buddha).

1. Where patterns come from

Sheldrake (morphic resonance)

• Patterns exist in morphic fields
• Once something happens, it becomes easier to happen again
• Memory is partly in nature, not just in brains
• Telepathy = resonance across organisms

Advaita Vedānta

• Patterns arise from vāsanās (latent tendencies) in the mind
• These tendencies shape perception and reaction
• But all of this appears within consciousness (Ātman/Brahman)
• No need for fields between minds — only one awareness

Buddhist (Abhidharma-style)

• Patterns come from conditioning (saṅkhāra) and dependent origination
• Habits propagate moment-to-moment
• No permanent self, just causal flow
• Telepathy sometimes discussed but not metaphysically required

Key difference:

• Sheldrake: patterns live outside individuals in fields
• Advaita: patterns live in mind, but mind appears in nondual awareness
• Buddhism: patterns are impersonal causal processes, no self behind them

2. Telepathy specifically

Sheldrake
Telepathy is natural:

• especially in animals
• between close humans
• suppressed by modern culture

Mechanism: morphic resonance between similar systems.

Advaita
Telepathy is possible but irrelevant to liberation:

• treated as a siddhi (psychic ability)
• arises from subtle mind refinement
• still within illusion (māyā)

Advaita teachers often warn:

psychic powers strengthen the “second arrow” — identification with being special.

Buddhist traditions
Similar stance:

• telepathy appears in meditation texts
• considered side effects, not enlightenment
• attachment to them is an obstacle

3. “Decline of intuition” idea

This is where Sheldrake overlaps most with contemplative traditions.

Sheldrake
Modernity reduces:

• telepathy
• instinctive awareness
• collective sensitivity

Because:

• technology replaces direct perception
• analytic thinking dominates

Advaita
Ignorance increases when:

• identification with intellect strengthens
• attention moves outward
• awareness of Self is lost

This looks very similar psychologically.

Buddhism
Suffering increases when:

• conceptual proliferation (papañca) grows
• mental narratives dominate raw experience
• more “second arrows”

Again — similar pattern.

4. The deepest metaphysical difference

This is the big one:

Sheldrake:
Reality = many organisms connected by fields

Advaita:
Reality = one consciousness appearing as many

Buddhism (classical):
Reality = no fixed essence, just dependent processes

So even if they sound similar:

• Sheldrake multiplies connections
• Advaita collapses everything into one awareness
• Buddhism removes the metaphysical ground entirely

5. Interesting convergence with your earlier “second arrow” theme

All three agree on something subtle:

The more conceptualization and self-reference you add:

• the less direct perception
• the more distortion
• the more suffering

So:

• Buddha: second arrow = conceptual suffering
• Advaita: second arrow = identification with mind
• Sheldrake: second arrow (loosely) = over-analytic modern cognition blocking natural resonance

Different metaphysics, same psychological intuition.

The interesting twist is that Advaita actually undercuts both:
If there is only one awareness,
then telepathy is unnecessary — nothing is really separate to communicate across.

Which raises a provocative Advaita-style question:

If all minds appear in the same awareness, what would telepathy even connect?

RS. Evoln of Telepathy

 Ah, that makes more sense—Rupert Sheldrake.

Sheldrake does propose something closer to what you’re recalling, but it’s important to separate his hypotheses from established genetics or mainstream neuroscience.

What Sheldrake actually proposes (in simplified form)

Sheldrake is known for the idea of “morphic resonance”:

• Nature has memory-like fields (“morphic fields”)
• Patterns of behavior, learning, or form become easier to repeat once they’ve occurred before
• This applies across biology, not just genetics

From that framework, he speculates that things like:

• animal instincts
• learned behaviors
• and even human “psychic” phenomena

could become more common or easier over time due to collective repetition rather than genetic evolution.

So in his view, something like telepathy (if it exists) wouldn’t necessarily be coded in DNA—it would become habitual in nature itself, via these morphic fields.

About the “evolution of telepathy” idea

Sheldrake has suggested (in essays and talks, not mainstream studies) that:

• telepathy-like effects might be more common in animals than acknowledged
• humans may have had stronger intuitive or “psychic” social perception in pre-modern contexts
• modern culture (language, technology, analytical thinking) may suppress or distract from it

But this is speculative theory-building, not established experimental science.

Critical scientific status

Mainstream view:

• morphic resonance has not been demonstrated in controlled, reproducible experiments
• claims about telepathy remain unverified at the level required for acceptance in neuroscience or biology

Supporters’ view:

• it offers an alternative framework for patterns that feel hard to explain (habits, instincts, anecdotal psi experiences)

Critics’ view:

• it lacks a mechanism consistent with physics
• evidence is anecdotal or statistically contested

Linking back to your earlier idea (DNA / history / clairvoyance)

The idea you mentioned earlier (clairvoyance being “older” or more common historically) aligns more with Sheldrake’s style of thinking, but:

• he would frame it in terms of field-based habits in nature
• not “old DNA being detected in psychic families”

So the thread you’re sensing is real at the level of speculative interpretation, but not something that has empirical support in genetics or evolutionary biology.

If you want, I can map Sheldrake’s “morphic fields” side-by-side with Advaita and Buddhist models of mind—there are some interesting (and some misleading) overlaps people often point to.