In the psychological sense of the term 'conditioning', we have been conditioned to philosophize in some particular pattern. The second cause of the above mentioned failure is our attachment to our heritage. It is clear that heritage is something which we receive from the past. We have seen in the above that Radhakrishnan has admitted, though not in the strong sense, the charge of unprogressiveness of Indian philosophy, and has yet himself remained unprogressive, being a follower of Samkara. It is this love which is a problem.
Love leads to emotional attachment and obstructs true rational considerations.
And love makes things behavioral. This is why I think that this cause of the unprogressiveness of Indian philosophy is more psychological than philosophical. The third cause of the unprogressiveness is the fact that the prominent schools of Indian philosophy accept authority or testimony as a source of knowledge. Authority, or the testimony of reliable persons and scriptures thus forms the basis of philosophy'. This stand is fully accepted by Mimamsa and Vedanta schools, and it is a fact that the other schools, except Carvaka, accept this stand to some extent.