Here is something I posted in an earlier thread that may have some bearing on this discussion:
An unchanging self certainly would not be able to feel since it would not be influenced by or even aware of its surroundings (which would be the khandhas). It would be meaningless to say that this unchanging “being” was impure and wanted to change to a state of purity.
The Buddha clearly stated: Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. - SN III 46.
The idea that there is some unchanging thing, some “being,” some self, that we really in fact are that is different from the khandhas is meaningless. An unchanging “being” cannot act, cannot feel, is not aware, would have no qualities by which it can be defined, cannot influence or respond to that which changes, the khandhas.
‘”I am’ is derivative upon form … perception … feelings … volitional formation … consciousness’ – S XXII 83/iii 105
We make a radical, unstated assumption that the "self" -- this “being”, this "I am" that we assume that we are - does - in some fundamental way - exist, not changing, and that it is an independent agent behind what we experience. As we have seen the Buddha, however, points out that our sense of self, no matter how “refined” is derived from our experiences, it is a conditioned experience.
The assumption, the radical feeling is that we are in our heart of hearts, in the very core of our being, this self, this “being”, this “I am,” - and this assumption, this radical feeling that this self, this “I am” is an unchanging agent is the fundamental delusion, the base ignorance. The insight that arises from the Dhamma practice allows us to see that this "self" - this “I am” - is both conditioned and conditioning. The self - the “being” - does not exist independently of the rise and fall, the ever-changing flow, of conditions.
The radical insight of the Buddha is that we are not a singular independent self, but we are, rather, a dynamic interdependent process where choice, feelings, sensations, the whole catastrophe plays itself out without a need for an unchanging self, no matter how rarified we imagine the “I am”, the self, the “being” to be. Though there is an intellectual component to this teaching of the Buddha to which we can give assent, it is really a matter of cultivating mindfulness that gives rise to the insight into seeing what we truly are.
". . . the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." U iv 1.
In the mean time - until we are awakened - we have to deal with this sense of self, this sense of “being”. We can tell it where to get off, but being stubborn, recalcitrant, and primal it won't get off. The sense of self, of “I am”, persists. So, in a very real sense, via the practice of the Dhamma, we cultivate the self, we train it, we tame it via Right View, the precepts and meditative practice, through giving and lovingkindness practice, all of which help thin the walls of delusion of permanence with which we surround the self and by which we build up the sense and idea of “being.” The insight - vipassana - from practice of the Buddha-Dhamma allows us to see the self's actual interdependent nature, which allows us to let go of that sense – delusion -- of self, of being, that we seem to think is so real.
Basically, an unchanging self - a “being” - separate from the khandhas is a silly idea. The idea of an unchanging self - a “being” - of any sort is a silly idea given that it is no thing, capable of doing no thing. And as far as this thread is concerned, such an unchanging “being” cannot feel, manifest or receive compassion.
It is that we are not an unchanging “being” that cannot act or interact, which gives us the possibility of awakening and the possibility of compassion, because we can and do interact with others, seeing that their changing nature is just like ours. We are not independent beings; rather, we are interdependent:
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed. Sn 705