As I discuss in this answer, one of the early movements that was important to the development of Vaishnavism was the ancient Pancharatra movement, whose sacred texts consisted of detailed procedures to worship the sage Narayana, an ancient incarnation of Vishnu. Since the Pancharatra texts originated from Narayana himself, they're followed by pretty much all Vaishnavas today. But there was a time when some people, especially those belonging to the Purva Mimamsa school, questioned the validity of the Pancharatra texts because they believed the Vedas were the only legitimate Hindu scriptures. So as I discuss in this question, the early Sri Vaishnava Acharya Yamunacharya, who was Ramanujacharya's guru's guru, composed a work called the Agama Pramanya to defend the scriptural authority of the Pancharatra texts.
Now part of Yamunacharya's argument involves demonstrating that the Pancharatra Agamas don't contradict the Vedas. After he demonstrates this, he refutes a potential objection:
Therefore, even if there were a conflict between the Bhagavan's doctrine and the Veda, there still would be option between them; but we have already expounded that there is no conflict between them at all. Objection: However, how can the venerable author of the Bhashya state that those parts which are in conflict are invalid: "If there be conflict, it is carefully eliminated." Refutation: This statement means that those of frail minds, who are not strong enough to plunge into the deep ocean of rules of interpretation, must not be disrespectful to the Vedas. This is comparable to the venerable Jaimini's exposition that the fruits of acts serve to increase people's faith in the acts.
So it seems that there was some Bhashyakara or commentator who said concerning the Pancharatra Agamas that "If there be conflict, it is carefully eliminated." Yamunacharya explains that this Bhashyakara is just pretending to criticize the Pancharatra Agamas, because he doesn't want people who mistakenly think that the Pancharatra Agamas contradict the Vedas to reject the Vedas because of that.
My question is, who is the Bhashyakara being referred to here? The translator says that it is Shabara Swami, the traditional commentator on the Purva Mimamsa Sutras. But does that quote occur in Shabara's commentary?
This journal paper by Gerhard Oberhammer suggests that he was a pre-Shankara commentator on the Brahma Sutras. As I discuss in this question, Adi Shankaracharya thought that the Brahma Sutras criticized the Pancharatra Agamas. Oberhammer argues that the first two of the four sections of Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya which discuss this issue are actually written from the point of view of the mysterious Bhashyakara, and the second two sections are designed to refute the Bhashyakara. And he further claims that the Sri Vaishnava Acharya Sudarshana Suri quotes and refutes this same Bhashyakara. In any case, Oberhammer's fundamental contention is that this Bhashyakara was a proponent of a modification of the Vyuha theory (which I discuss here) which is consistent with the Vedas.
But are there any Sri Vaishnava commentaries on Yamunacharya's Agama Pramanya which shed light on the identity of this Bhashyakara? By the way, Oberhammer theorizes that this Bhashyakara may have been Dramidacharya, an ancient Vedantic philosopher who wrote a commentary on the Chandogya Upanishad as I discuss here. (See my question here for more information.)