[quote=“Shaun, post:4, topic:5038”]
As I am sure you are well aware, the core concept within Lao Zi is 无为而无不为, this is sometimes abbreviated just as 无为 or even just as 无 alone.
[/quote]If you are interested in the role of the 無為法 in early Chinese Buddhism I would humbly recommend this essay that I wrote here with at least one caveat: there is a pretty brutal generalization about the term sankara dhamma (caused by my amateurishness) which is contextualized in the following discussion by @knotty36, as well as a few other mistakes that are caught in the subsequent discussion.
Incidentally, when I looked up 无为而无不为 I got “without action yet without non-action”, is this close to your understanding?
[quote=“James2997, post:2, topic:5038”]
是我 ＝ is self
有我 ＝ have self
[/quote]How does this relate to 有為 & 是為, specifically in the case of constructions like 有為法 ? It seems that 有 & 是 are being used as some sort of “opposite” of 無, which was suggested by another user in the Qu Tan thread… I am just wondering what the specific readings of the characters we should use is.
e.g.
asaṃskṛtadharma 
無為法
saṃskṛtadharma 有為法
What is the reading of 有, it is just “having action dharma”? I had a suspicion it was related to the Indic bhava but no way to be sure.