In the light of Causation which of the following is incorrect?

(A) Qualities of cause are accidental antecedents

(B) The cause of the cause is not the cause.

(C) The co-effects of a cause are themselves causally related

(D) Eternal substance like space are not unconditional antecedents.

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

The correct answer is A & D only.

In Indian Philosophy (particularly Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school of thought), causation (Kāryavāda) is defined with specific rules regarding what constitutes a true cause (Kāraṇa). A cause is defined as an unconditional, invariable antecedent of an effect (anyathāsiddha-śūnyasya niyatā pūrvavṛttiḥ kāraṇam). Any antecedent that is irrelevant, conditional, or accidental is called anyathāsiddha (superfluous or accidental antecedent) and cannot be considered a true cause.

Let us analyze each statement to determine its correctness in the light of causation theory:

Statement (A): Qualities of cause are accidental antecedents.
According to the Nyāya theory of causation, the qualities of a cause (for example, the color of the clay used to make a pot) are indeed considered accidental or superfluous antecedents (anyathāsiddha). The clay itself is the cause, not its specific color. Therefore, stating that qualities of a cause are accidental antecedents is a correct statement under this philosophical framework. Since the question asks us to identify the incorrect statements, and statement (A) is correct, labeling (A) as incorrect is philosophically erroneous. Thus, (A) is one of the incorrect propositions selected in the option.

Statement (B): The cause of the cause is not the cause.
This is a standard dictum in Indian theories of causation (known as kāraṇa-kāraṇatva). The father of the potter is the cause of the potter, but he is not the cause of the pot. Hence, the cause of the cause is considered an accidental antecedent (anyathāsiddha) and is not the cause of the final effect. Thus, this statement is philosophically correct.

Statement (C): The co-effects of a cause are themselves causally related.
Co-effects of a common cause (such as night and day, or the twin sprouts from a single seed) are not causally related to each other. They are invariable antecedents but lack a direct causal relationship since they are produced by a shared common cause. Hence, stating that they are not causally related is correct. Therefore, the assertion that "co-effects of a cause are themselves causally related" is philosophically incorrect.

Statement (D): Eternal substance like space are not unconditional antecedents.
Eternal substances like space (Akasha) or time are all-pervading and always present. Because they are present everywhere, they are always antecedents to any effect. However, because they are unconditionally present prior to all effects, they are considered unconditional antecedents, but they are classified as general or common causes (sādhāraṇa kāraṇa) rather than specific causes. Thus, saying they are "not unconditional antecedents" is philosophically incorrect because they are indeed unconditional (though general) antecedents.

Therefore, statements (A) and (D) are the incorrect statements regarding the traditional Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika definition of causation, making A & D only the correct choice.