X doesn't have any nature of X... in this way we call it X.
I.e., "down" is never really down, so that is why we make sure to call it "down."
Dukkha is never fixed as a dukkha. That is why it is called "dukkha."
In "self," there is no self which can be seen; it is in that way that the Tathagata calls it "self."
Could you expand, im having trouble unpacking this
for example what do you mean by ""down" is never really down, so that is why we make sure to call it "down.""?
Down and up are a matter of perspectives. So we call the same thing by different names depending on the perception
I'm sorry for writing it in that particular way... but strictly, it's: "Down" is not down; it's in this way the Tathagata calls it "down." This kind of logic is recurrent in the Diamond Sutra, as was said by the Buddha (or so claimed).
"Down" is never really down (because it always means something different, depending on someone's frame of reference), in this way it's called "down." (And thus everyone still understands what you mean by the word "down," even when the person has no awareness of the implications involved.)
When you say "down" to someone whose frame of reference was the opposite to yours, I think it's likely that he will still understand what you meant, anyway... and if he didn't at first, then it's likely that the understanding will be worked out without much difficulty.
If despite this there was still no understanding, I think that describes samsara... more or less.