As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school. But there are five other Astika or orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy: Purva Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, and Nyaya. My question is about Samkhya school, which believed that there were two kinds of entities in the Universe, Purushas or souls and Prakriti or matter/energy, and that Prakriti takes on a variety of forms in the presence of Purushas. And they rejected the existence of a supreme being.
In any case, the Samkhya school was founded by someone named Kapila. This name is highly significant, because Hindu scripture speaks of a Rishi named Kapila, who was an incarnation of Vishnu and the son of Brahma's son Kardama and his wife Devahuti. This Kapila taught his mother Devahuti about philosophy, and he burnt the sons of king Sagara to ashes, which ultimately led to the descent of the Ganga river as I discuss here. Yet when we examine the teachings of Kapila to his mother Devahuti, in the third Skandha of the Srimad Bhagavatam, we see that they're very different from the doctrines of the Samkhya school; not only does Kapila acknowledge the existence of a supreme being, he also teaches his mother about the importance of Bhakti Yoga or devotional service to Vishnu.
Now I wrote this fictional dialogue to try to reconcile how the Samkhya school could reject the existence of a supreme being despite being founded by an incarnation of Vishnu. But others reconcile things in a different way, namely by arguing that there are two Kapilas, one Kapila who was an incarnation of Vishnu and burnt the sons of Sagaras to ashes, and another Kapila who founded the atheistic Samkhya school. There's evidence on both sides:
One piece of evidence for the one-Kapila theory is this verse of the Srimad Bhagavatam, which says that Vishnu's incarnation Kapila had a shishya named Asuri:
The fifth incarnation, named Lord Kapila, is foremost among perfected beings. He gave an exposition of the creative elements and metaphysics to Āsuri Brāhmaṇa, for in course of time this knowledge had been lost.
This is significant because verse 70 of Ishwara Krishna's Samkhya Karika, the defining text of the Samkhya school, says that Kapila the founder of the Samkhya school had a shishya named Asuri:
This sacred and supreme (Knowledge), the sage (Kapila) gave to Āsuri out of compassion. Āsuri (gave it) to Pañcaśikha, who elaborated the doctrine.
One piece of evidence for the two-Kapilas theory this chapter, which lists Kapila founder of the Samkhya school as one of the fire gods descended from the sage Angiras:
That divine spirit whose course is marked with black and white stains, who is the supporter of fire, and who, though free from sin, is the accomplisher of desired karma, whom the wise regard as a great Rishi, is the fire Kapila, the propounder of the Yoga system called Sankhya.
Vishnu's incarnation Kapila, on the other hand, is not a descendant of Brahma's son Angiras, rather he's the son of Brahma's son Kardama.
But my question is, which Acharyas believe in the two-Kapilas theory, and which Acharyas believe in the one-Kapila? So far I've found two supporters of the two-Kapilas theory: the Advaita philosopher Adi Shankaracharya, who in this section of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya that the two Kapilas are different; and the Gaudiya Vaishnava commentator Baladeva Vidyabhushana, who says in this section of his Govinda Bhashya that Kapila the founder of the Samkhya school is the descendant of Angiras I mentioned above, rather than Vishnu's incarnation Kapila.
But are there any Acharyas who are neither Advaitins nor Gaudiya Vaishnavas who support the two-Kapilas theory? What about Acharyas who support the one-Kapila theory?