Verse 1.5.27

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of verse 1.5.27:

मन्येऽत्रावतरिष्यन् न स्वयम् एवम् असौ यदि ।
तदास्य भगवत्तैवाभविष्यत् प्रकटा न हि ॥ २७ ॥

manye'trāvatariṣyan na svayam evam asau yadi |
tadāsya bhagavattaivābhaviṣyat prakaṭā na hi || 27 ||

I think that if Śrī Kṛṣṇa had not personally descended, then His supreme majesty, namely, the glories of being the Supreme Bhagavān would never have been revealed in this world.

Commentary: Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā with Bhāvānuvāda

(By Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī himself including a deep purport of that commentary)

If doubt arises as to why has such a beautiful form and qualities never been seen before, manifested now? If His beautiful form and qualities are unprecedented, how can they be eternal? And furthermore, it can be said that if this beautiful form existed before, then its superiority due to being unprecedented cannot be fully proven. Anticipating such doubts, Śrī Nārada speaks these two verses beginning with manye.

My opinion is that if Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself never descended in Śrī Mathurā-dhāma of this earthly planet, what to speak of His exquisite, wonderful beauty, even His supreme majesty would never have been expressed. The indeclinable article hi is used to indicate such a certainty. The import is that although such qualities as His supreme aiśvarya and rūpa, līlā and dhāma are eternal, that is, ever-present in Goloka beyond the material realm, still they could not manifest on this earthly planet unless they were made to descend, or nobody in this world could realize it at this time. Therefore, I think that due to such rūpa, līlā and so on, despite His bhagavattā (the quality of being the Supreme Personality or supreme majesty) was certainly unprecedented in this world, nonetheless, at present it has manifested so everyone would be capable of realizing it. It is my opinion that had His bhagavattā endowed with the opulence such as beauty and other qualities not been displayed in this world, then despite its eternality, it would have remained unmanifest to the world. Thus I would have surely counted that His bhagavattā aspect as “non-existing,” that is, I would have considered it as “not existing.”