How does the idea of Bodhisatva in Mahayana mesh with anattā? As this is my first posted question, I welcome input as to how to improve it. Many thanks in advance.

When I have heard Mahayana practitioners discuss the concept of Bodhisatva as it varies from Theravadan teachings, it's spoken of as a mark against Theravada. It's suggested that Theravada lacks compassion for others, and that the Bodhisatva ideal "repairs" this lack of compassion.

When I consider this idea, I can't escape the feeling that the concept of a Bodhisatva ("me") helping "others" seems contrary to the idea of anattā. The idea that I would focus on self-ness (either my own or that of another) seems like a mistaken view. Instead, when I think of suffering, I think that, "there is suffering," not that "I am suffering" or "they are suffering." As such, the Bodhisatva concept seems to guide my thinking away from what I believe is Buddha's teacing of correct understanding.

As to lack of compassion... my thinking is that the work I do in my practice is meant to reduce suffering. Not to reduce my suffering and ignore that of others, but to reduce suffering itself.

And so my question is this: Am I understanding the pieces of this correctly? I realize some here adhere to different parts of this issue, and I appreciate feedback from both sides. Perhaps someone can explain how they think of the idea of "no-self" as it related to the Bodhisatva idea?
The lines between helping the self and helping others haven't always been very clear even to accomplished masters of either tradition,  for example, this is from Huang Po, 


  Even if you go through all the stages of a Bodhisattva's progress
  toward Buddhahood, one by one; when at last, in a single flash, you
  attain to full realization, you will only be realizing the
  Buddha-Nature which has been with you all the time; and by all the
  foregoing stages you will have added to it nothing at all.


(source)

Then there is of course the position that the very idea of a Bodhisattva way of life isn't a purely Mahayana experiment. 


  There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the
  ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with
  Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to
  become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It
  must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was
  spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were
  beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it
  without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the
  texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is
  that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the
  Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.


(source)

When one has gone beyond the idea of self in either case, where does the I end and the We begin?