text:
Conciousness in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
I would be happy if someone could clear up a doubt for me.
When Advaita talk about consciousness without boundaries it is said to be the "Self". It is described as combining being and knowing in one thing. This being and knowing divides itself in two, and becomes the knower (subject) and the known (object), which creates the duality. Now when the knower-and-the-known duality has been eradicated, it is said that what remains is this knowing-being self.
Now I am confused because I heard that somewhere in the Canon the Buddha talked about the conciousness vinjana without boundaries that the Arahat have.
Is he talking about the knowing-being self that the Advaita is talking about? And what exactly is this consciousness that the Buddha talks about: is it the same as knowing-being that Advaita talks about, when the duality of self and not-self has been removed?
I read somewhere that Buddhism says that knowing-being is not true: because consciousness always consciousness-of-something, in other words it cannot be conscious-of-itself, and therefore consciousness-of-itself or knowing-being as one thing is not possible. Please clarify this for me so that I understand, thanks.

@Workinghard There are several other topics on this site about Advaita, possibly one of them might help to answer this question.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say something similar, but a Buddhist description tries to be a little more careful and nuanced.
We say that vijnana ("consciousness", "experience") is always dualistic, always split into subject/object and object/background. And, we also say that vijnana is not a "something", it's a process, not an entity, so to say that "it" can or cannot be conscious of "itself" is silly. The process of cognizing can only cognize memories or thoughts about the process of cognizing.
We say that this dualistic or "tainted" process of vijnana develops from tendencies for liking and disliking, according to process known as Dependent Origination. And that before this development occurs, there's a state of great nondifferentiation. This nondifferentiation is not necessarily good or bad, after all it carries potential for developing into confusion of Samsara, but it also carries potential for developing into the Buddha. What this nondifferentiation tells us is that all boundaries and all dualities are mind-made, and that therefore all our troubles lie within those mind-made frameworks, the troubles only have their existence within those conceptual frameworks.
Finally, we recognize that someone may attain a first-hand realization of how all of this works and see these mind-making processes directly as they happen in real-time. Someone like that would see both, all mind-made boundaries and frameworks, all dualities of "this" vs "that" - but also at the same time see "the ground" of all of these, the reality underlying differentiation. We call such vision "enlightenment" and such person "a buddha".
When this enlightenment is attained, it involves seeing beyond all dualities, including duality of "me" vs "world". It becomes clear that mind has no boundaries. This mind (rigpa) is not the same as the process of dualistic cognition that we call consciousness or vijnana, but something much more fundamental, it is the fundamental principle of information exchange. Mind is inherently luminous because it is the very capability of representation. Mind is everywhere and flows everywhere because everything carries some representation, so in some sense everything is mind.
This is very similar to what they say in Advaita Vedanta, however there is an important difference. We don't say that mind is "I" or "self". It seems silly to equate the (ever-dualistic) subject with the fundamental principle beyond subject-object duality. Calling it "I" makes it seem like it is the same as our own self-awareness, and that therefore our individual self-awareness will somehow last forever, which is not true. Mind is not the subject, it's not the universe, it is the fundamental principle, the fundamental law giving the rise to both the subject and the universe. In Buddhism we don't say "I am the law" :))
Instead, we study this Law in all its aspects - as mind, as Depenent Origination, as self-perpetuating accumulation of tendencies, as Being-Time (see Dogen), as the source of Samsara and Nirvana, as Emptiness, as karma, as Three Marks of Existence  - and we take comfort in knowing that this Law is one thing that is not subject to impermanence and is therefore something we can finally rely on.
We also don't say that mind is something special or fundamentally different from everything else. So it's not like this mind is One Aware Entity watching everything in the universe, no - mind is just an aspect of how everything works, part of everyday things.
To summarize, in Mahayana we agree with idea of nonduality of Being and Mind, but we are careful to not confuse it with such dualistic concepts as "I", "consciousness", and "the universe".

A very clear and useful answer. I see no difficulty in reconciling Advaita and Mahayana. The use of 'I', 'self', 'consciousness' is not a problem where lower/upper-case is used to distinguish between the superficial individual 'I' and the underlying unity. Every 'thing' would be Mind, but Mind would have an origin beyond Mind that is not-a-thing. As Plotinus says, 'Think of it as Mind and you think of it too meanly'. .

I will discuss mainly from the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.

OP: Now I am confused because I heard that somewhere in the Canon the
  Buddha talked about the conciousness vinjana without boundaries that
  the Arahat have.

What you're talking about is in MN 49 (and I think one or two other suttas).
Bhikkhu Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

This translation is problematic because there is no such thing as infinite consciousness in Buddhism. Equating Nibbana with infinite consciousness would be more of Advaita Vedanta rather than Buddhism.
In this answer, Bonn explained that this is a wrong translation. Although "viññāṇaṃ" is used, it doesn't always mean "consciousness". The grammatical form, used in this context, should be translated as "that which could be known" or "that which one could be consciously aware of".
The correct translation should be:

That which could be known (Nibbana),
  is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

So, Nibbana is something knowable, but it is not within the normal scope of physical and mental experience. It is not even within the normal scope of the experience of gods. Nibbana is not a type of consciousness and is certainly not a self. Nibbana is also not a substratum or foundation for the cosmos, or for anything. Nibbana is not an Ultimate Reality of any kind. Rather, it's the highest bliss that is experienced when ignorance is uprooted and suffering is ended.
Now, with this translation, it fits perfectly with the rest of the teachings in the Sutta Pitaka.
In Iti 44, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary here, the Buddha taught that for an Arahat, past physical death, all five aggregates are no longer operating. That includes consciousness.

OP: Is he talking about the knowing-being self that the Advaita is talking about? And what exactly is this consciousness that the Buddha
  talks about: is it the same as knowing-being that Advaita talks about,
  when the duality of self and not-self has been removed?

First, about Advaita Vedanta ...
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the eternal Transcendental Ultimate Reality which is the foundation or substratum of the cosmos, while the Self (Atman) is the eternal, permanent core of one's being.
Atman and Brahman are identical in Advaita, while everything else is made out of Brahman like pots and pans made out of clay. It's only because of maya (illusion) that things appear to be different. It's also because of maya (illusion) that you see yourself as a limited being with a temporary identity (the ego), rather than being Atman and Brahman itself. This is how it is non-dual.
Advaitin gurus would suggest you to ask "Who am I?" and discover that the true "I" is Atman, which is Brahman. The Atman is also the Eternal Witness, or the Cosmic Consciousness, the "I" of every self-conscious being. After attaining Self-Realization (where the little ego-self drops away), one would remain existing forever as this one single Eternal Witness or Cosmic Consciousness, that witnesses through every self-conscious being and even witnesses directly without any beings.
According to the Hindu text Shvetashvatara Upanishad:

God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings.
  He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures.
  He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him.
  He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness

According to the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14:

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears
  everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.

What did the Buddha teach?
The self (atta) is the idea or thought that arises out of the inter-operation or inter-working of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness). This is similar to how music is created when different parts of a musical instrument works together. See Lute Sutta. How the five aggregates work together is described by Dependent Origination.
Sabbe dhamma anatta means that all phenomena (including Nibbana), is not self. If you break a musical instrument into pieces, you won't be able to find music in any of the constituent parts. If you look at the five aggregates, you cannot find the self there. The Buddha means here that there is no eternal and permanent core of one's being, that is the self, not even Nibbana.
Rather, the self is an impermanent changing idea, that arises and passes away from moment to moment, depending on the operation of the five aggregates, just as other mentally generated ideas.
And what about consciousness? The Buddha taught the following, from MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
What is non-duality in Buddhism? Everyone has this duality of self and non-self. There's the "I" mental idea (the self), and the objectification and classification of perceived sensations into objects (in the mind) according to its relationship to the self. This is discussed in great detail in this answer. When one becomes enlightened, this duality which gives rise to suffering, will cease.

OP: I read somewhere that Buddhism says that knowing-being is not true: because consciousness always consciousness-of-something, in
  other words it cannot be conscious-of-itself, and therefore
  consciousness-of-itself or knowing-being as one thing is not possible.

The Buddha was very clear that there is no transcendental consciousness or transcendental core of being, that is aware of something beyond the six sense media.
From The All Sutta (also see this question):

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range.

Also useful is MN 38, in which the Buddha makes clear that it is not the SAME consciousness that wanders through one's life:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
  him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
  him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
  'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
  consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
  One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
  another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
  the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
  Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
  grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
  produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
  harm & suffering."

Buddhism does not have the following concepts:

Atman
Brahman
Purusha

The Buddhist view is that everything being is dependently arisen than having a soul. Also, realisation and enlightenment in Buddhism do not have anything to do with the Brahma or Brahmic knowledge but the understanding of reality as it is.
Also in Buddhsim, the goal is to know reality as it is than to know oneself.
Also, see the following:

consciousness and self
way of realisation in Buddhism in contrast

Householder, interested,
"Who knows... ?" Troubles or? Doesn't release.
maybe The Limits of Description : Not-self Revisited helps out of that, at least to gain some faith to simply practice and realize the ending of suffering for oneself, since "to be or not to be" isn't helpful for release.
The Buddhas given path to higher and beyond: The path to freedom
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

The questions about consciousness are not important. Consciousness is something that can be experienced in many ways.
What is important is the Buddhist view about "self". In Buddhism, "self" is merely a thought formation. SN 22.81 says:

An uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes consciousness to be
the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause,
what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the
coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

For example, the "Self" of Advaita is merely a "label" or "thought formation". It is not a real self. When the indivisibility of consciousness & sense objects is experienced, Advaita calls this "The Self". This "The Self" is merely a label. This label is unrelated to the perceived  indivisibility of consciousness & sense objects.
Please try to understand. If "Oneness" is experienced, that "Oneness" is "Oneness"; it is "Unified Consciousness"; it is "Consciousness Without Boundaries", or whatever realistic description of the experience. But it is not "The Self". It is consciousness.
Buddhism says:

'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'
MN 43


text:
In which ways do anagamis still experience ignorance?
According to the ten fetters model, one of the five fetters which are only removed at attaining arahantship is ignorance (avijja). This means that anagamis are still subject to ignorance in some way. But it's also evident that anagamis possess a lot less ignorance than ordinary people. For example, belief in a self (sakkaya-ditthi) is abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment. So which forms of ignorance would an anagami still experience, and which forms not? Or is ignorance something that only sometimes arises in an anagami, the same way ill-will is only sometimes present in ordinary people?
Thanks in advance for your answers!

I've read that one time Ven Anuruddha being a non-returner talked to Sariputta and it went something like this:

"With clairvoyance that is purified and surpasses the human, I survey
the entire world-system. My energy is roused up and unflagging, my
mindfulness is established and lucid, my body is tranquil and
undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in samādhi. But my mind is not
freed from the defilements by not grasping.”
Venerable Sariputta then answers:
“Well, Reverend Anuruddha, when you say: ‘With clairvoyance that is
purified and surpasses the human, I survey the entire world-system,’
that’s your conceit. And when you say: ‘My energy is roused up and
unflagging, my mindfulness is established and lucid, my body is
tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in samādhi,’ that’s
your restlessness. And when you say: ‘But my mind is not freed from
the defilements by not grasping,’ that’s your remorse. It would be
good to give up these three things. Instead of focusing on them, apply
your mind to the deathless.” - AN3.130 https://suttacentral.net/an3.130/pli/ms

excellent answer

According to MN 9 (below), as long as you still have fermentation or effluents, you would still have ignorance, and vice versa (also see this question). Ignorance is a very deeply ingrained and deeply lingering fetter.

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

There is a vicious cycle between ignorance and fermentation.
There seems to be four types of fermentations in the Dhammawiki page of fermentation:

The mental fermentation of sense-desire (kāmāsava), Ex: 'All is pleasant'
The mental fermentation of desiring existence (bhavāsava), Ex: 'Being is good'
The mental fermentation of wrong views (ditthāsava), Ex: 'My opinion is best'
The mental fermentation of ignorance (avijjāsava). Ex: 'Suffering exists not'

According to this wikipedia page on ten fetters, the Anagami still has the fetters of lust for material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance.
So, the Anagami would have overcome the mental fermentation of sense-desire (kāmāsava) and the mental fermentation of wrong views (ditthāsava). However, he would still be challenged by the mental fermentation of desiring existence (bhavāsava). I take it that conceit is related to bhavāsava.
What does this mean?
The Anagami has overcome self-view, attachment to rituals, doubt, sensual desire and ill will. But the Anagami still has the mental fermentation of wanting to exist. And this will cause ignorance to continue.
You know the Four Noble Truths very well, dispelled wrong views (including self-view), overcame sensual desire and overcame ill will. But when someone threatens your life, you may get scared. Why? It's because you still want to exist.

Ignorance as the last fetter is merely a broad fetter including any type of attachment or self-view that still may arise.
For example, the life of the anagami may be threatened with deadly violence and the idea "I am" may arise in the anagami just before the anagami is beheaded with a sword.
Or the anagami may see many individual life forms slaughtered in war and may think those life forms or aggregates are "beings" or "people". For example, an anagami may believe 3,000 "beings" ("satta") "died" ("marana") on 9/11 where as an Arahant would perceive 15,000 aggregates (khandha) or 18,000 elements (dhatu) ending on 9/11.
There is a sutta (somewhere) where an anagami did not attain arahantship because they got excited about the Dhamma and had the urge to tell their "uncle" (other other relative). The anagami still viewed their "uncle" as "a being" or "person".
Or an anagami may get attached to the Dhamma, such as imputing "self-view" or "personhood" upon an individual that misrepresents the Dhamma doctrinally.
Ignorance is not-knowing the 4 noble truths and not knowing the three characteristics. The 1st noble truth is summarised as "attachment to the five aggregates". The three characteristics are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self. Therefore, if an anagami attaches to anything as "self", ignorance remains.

The one sutta that came to mind regarding your request had neither avijja nor anagami, but I think it may have an answer to your question according to my reading of the sutta:
In SN22.89, we read about Venerable Khemaka, who is ill and dealing with the conceit, "I am".

For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.

Because of this, we might infer that Ven. Khemaka was a non-returner. Yet Khemaka understood the escape even though he was ignorant of its fruition:

Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated.

The subtlety of ignorance in non-returners is compared with the lingering of a cleansing scent:

Although that cloth is clean and bright, it still has a lingering scent of salt, lye, or cow dung that had not been eradicated.

Thank you for your answer. However, conceit (mana) is listed as a hindrance on its own, distinct from avijja.

Clear understanding of the 4 Noble Truths (ignorance is not knowing the 4 Noble Truths.) or the lack of ignorance is only present in an Arahat. What I can say is that an Anagami's comprehension of the 4 Noble Truths is not complete in comparison to an arhat. To what extent the anagami lack ignorance in comparison to a sotapanna is difficult to say. The difference between an anagami and a  sotapanna is the presence or lack of other factors. Ignorance is present in both.
Following are some abilities of the Buddha:

The Tathagatha Buddha has realized the way how worldly beings match with each other; that is the ignoble coalesce with the ignoble, the ungrateful ones with the ungrateful ones, the bad with the bad, the good with the good, and the various and different matching natures as they really are. This is His Fourth Power.

The Tathagatha Buddha has realized the diversity of beings and their various types of behaviors, desires, and emotions. It is in accordance with this knowledge that He teaches the Dhamma so that beings may best understand His Teachings. This is His Fifth Power.

So only the Buddha may know the true difference between the level of the ignorance factor between a sotapanna and anagami.

Householder gooiditnietweg, interested,
maybe it's good to make clear that one does don't really experiences ignorance or ignorance as ignorance (not knowing what should be known for release) but the effects of such: i.e. suffering.
Once one sees suffering clearly and understands it's arising, path and fading, it decays.
An Anagami (One no more after a household, new stand) has practiced the path to an extend where "only" this, in relation to previous states of Noble-hood, remains (even very refined), spoken in mental fetters:

rūpa-rāga (desire after form)
arūpa-rāga (desire after non-form)
māna (pride)
uddhacca (restlessness)
avijjā (not knowing)

Aspects which are no more present:

dosa (aversion)
maccariya (stinginess, like all Noble Ones)

Falsehoods:

micchā-sakappa (wrong resolves)
pisunā-vācā (malicious speech)
pharusā-vācā (pharusa vaca)

... see best Table of Mental Fetters, etc. Abandoned by Each Path-Knowledge, generously given by Bhante Ñāṇadassana Thero
Aside of possible old kamma arising that he might not suddenly enought abound by seeing, he still might cause himself suffering by actions in:

samphap-palāpa (useless involvement in not conductive speech = burdensome talks)
micchā-vāyāma (wrong effort)
micchā-sati (wrong remembering)
micchā-samādhi (wrong concentration)
micchā-vimutti (wrong liberation)
micchā-ñāṇa (wrong seeing)

Although one having joined the path of Anagami and no more destinated to return into the world of sensualtity, heading direct to final liberation latest in the next existence, as long as not reached Arahatship, path and fruits, he may still be touched by suffering, subject to it, but by far no more in ways which could be taken on actions which lead to lower existences then the arupa-existances.
Ill-will is something that do no more exist in an Anagami and he is free from perceiving such as enemies. Another may perceive mother or father, acting helpful for one as a child, as ill-will acting, but such is the nature of childs (worldlings). So in regard of this aspect of householders question, no, an Anagami does never act for others disadvantages but the opposite, even leaving already this sensual world and fights on form behind. He has no more interests in gain an hold anything what ordinary beings are after and could therefore not perceive such as an enemy for anyone, sees just blind fighting over dirt perceiving it as worthy.

Anāgāmī: the 'Non-Returner'
(1) “He may, immediately after appearing there (in the Pure Abodes) or without having gone beyond half of the life-time, attain the holy path for the overcoming of the higher fetters. Such a being is called 'one who reaches Nibbāna within the first half of the life' (antarā-parinibbāyī).
(2) “Or, whilst living beyond half of the lifetime, or at the moment of death, he attains the holy path for the overcoming of the higher fetters. Such a being is called 'one who reaches Nibbāna after crossing half the life-time' (upahacca-parinibbāyī).
(3) “Or, with exertion he attains the holy path for the overcoming of the higher fetters. Such a being is called 'one who reaches Nibbāna with exertion' (sasaṅkhāra-parinibbāyī).
(4) “Or, without exertion he attains the holy path for the overcoming of the higher fetters. Such a being is called 'one who reaches Nibbāna without exertion' (asaṅkhāra-parinibbāyī).
(5) “Or, after vanishing from the heaven of the Aviha-gods (see Suddhāvāsa), he appears in the heaven of the unworried (atappa) gods. After vanishing from there he appears in the heaven of the clearly-visible (Sudassa)-gods, from there in the heaven of the clear-visioned (Sudassī) gods, from there in the heaven of the highest (akaniṭṭha) gods. There he attains the holy path for the overcoming of the higher fetters.
Such a being is called 'one who passes up-stream to the highest gods' (uddhamsota-akaniṭṭha-gāmī).”

One may ask how the way of life of an Anagami, still bound by obligations in the world, life as non-Ascetic: well there are stories of a Devoted having reached this state as a householder but still had to look after his mother. Abstaining from wrong livelihood he used to collect what the river daily brought on the banks and could in this way also support his old and sick mother. An Anagami is a renouncer and would not be found under busy householder, traders and ordinary worker and actually lead a mode of an recluse, if possible very near the/a good following monastic Sangha, doing services and avoid involvements with those not devoted toward Nibbana.
As for monks and homeless, such a person would not be found under city or scholar monks but is one devoted to Dhutonga and remote and not organiced practice which should be not mistaken with the modern "Forest Tradition" which uses this label but is actually void Anagami but after becoming.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

In simple terms, Anagami have seen that the body is suffering proper, and have released from worldly desire (body is how we experience the world). They have not yet seen the noble truth of suffering that consciousness is also suffering proper, and thus have not released from consiousness (vinnana). They still see wrongly that having samadhi is happy, not suffering.

The removal of fetters. A glimpse of insight. As such, the understanding of the Three Great Marks acts as the tool to get over the threshold of the first three fetters. Observing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness in light of (or with the understanding of) the Three Great Marks, he steps  onto the path of Sotapanna. The understanding of the first three fetters as fetters has been realized, however it is not fully realized in all areas of his life. Similarly with the higher fetters, one may know the right thing to do it but karmic seeds remain that need to be worked off. The Anagami stil has feelings of desire and energy, however they are represented more as conceit, restlessness and ignorance, and subtle craving. The understanding of the first 3 fetters is clearer. The realization that strong desire and ill-will has departed. The Three Great Marks continue to assist, until perfect clarity of the Truth of annica, anatta and dhukka are fully realized; that is, impermanence, change, and attachment or aversion to anything that is subject to annica and anatta, will be dhukka. Although the understanding of this becomes understood at Sotoapanna, the understanding needs to be consistently reinforced. It is an understanding that gets stronger and clearer, until ultimately all ignorance is removed. Further, much like recognizing signs along the way, it depends on the strength of intuition of the individual. Some recognize a sign well before it is reached; some recognize it as it passed; and others recognize it after the change has come. Some foresee the arising, others recognize it in the moment, and others in reflection. Either way, it is understood.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation?
What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation?
Doing, acting, content toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit?
Doing, acting, persist toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

you discern and focus on the birth of stress and suffering,
The Buddha:

    If you ask me the coming-into-being of stress and suffering, I will tell it to you
    as one who discerns. From acquisition[1] as cause the many forms of stress and suffering come into being in the world. Whoever, unknowing, makes acquisitions
    -- the fool -- comes to stress and suffering
    again
    and again.

So one who's discerning,
    focused on the birth
    of stress and suffering,
    their coming-into-being, should make no acquisitions.

and the way to do that is
 Mettagu:

What we asked, you've expounded. Now we ask something else.
    Please tell us. How do the prudent cross over the flood of
    birth and aging,
    lamentation and sorrow? Please, sage, declare this to me
    as this Dhamma has
    been known by you.

The Buddha:

I will teach you the Dhamma
    -- in the here and now,
    not quoted words -- knowing which, living mindfully, you'll cross over beyond entanglement in the world.

Mettagu:

And I relish, Great Seer, that Dhamma     supreme, knowing which, living mindfully, I'll cross over beyond entanglement in the world.

The Buddha:

Whatever you're alert to,
    above, below,
    across, in between:[2] dispelling any delight,
        any laying claim
        to those things, consciousness should not take a stance
        in becoming. The monk who dwells thus
    -- mindful, heedful -- letting go of his sense of mine, knowing right here would abandon
        birth and aging,
    lamentation and sorrow,
        stress and suffering.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/snp/snp.5-04.than.ati.htm

So holding, persisting on discerning suffering and not content with any release, or how should this be regarded to fit to the question, good householder?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma?
In reference to this:
Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting,  and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?
Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?
Their usual advertisement:

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?
or the usual approach of them:
Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?

Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute?
That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma? I, personally, would state the question thus!

@IlyaGrushevskiy Or, "Does censuring harsh speech imply that you're wrongly acting with aversion as your motive?" Or, "If someone (e.g. a site moderator) censors (i.e. deletes or bans) what another person would write on a site (e.g. writing that's perceived as "racist" or even just "extremist"), isn't that contrary to the advice in SN 7.2? Is it right to describe that as averena?"

"Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate?", no, but in most cases, especially if wrapped in hate speech. Look around seriously, householder @IlyaGrushevskiy. Where ever is love is hate: Pema Sutta. Looking foward to see a reflective answer, no political correctness but Dhamma prefered, from her.

DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds
prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a
noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity,
and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.
That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on
to say:
“If you act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, or stupidity,  your fame shrinks,  like the moon in the
waning fortnight.
If you don’t act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, and stupidity,  your fame swells,  like the moon in the
waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome &
unwholesome, benefit & danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising
of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it
has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful
and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and
those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to
them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of
principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
SN 46.2

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or
properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3)
What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by
means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the
skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?
Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only "racism" is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.
The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.
If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.
If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying such perceived extremism?
Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?

A question that contains words like "fighting", "deleting" or "destroying" implies that any form of antagonism towards extremism is an extreme act in itself. But making a case against intolerance really doesn't have to involve those things. So yes, it's possible to make a stand against extremism without being an extremist.

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself?

Sometimes, but you don't have to be. The "politically correct" views on tolerance partially stems from certain people being targets of real abuse, assault, or other forms of harassment/violence. Pleading for tolerance then becomes part of allowing people feeling - or in fact - being safe from harm.
To label the above "intolerance" seems like a rather creative use of language.

Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?

I am not familiar with any suttas that teaches us to accept those cases where certain people are being in actual danger. Perhaps i missed them.
(Also, the phrase "politically correct" can come across as a pejorative to people. I'll let you figure out what the suttas may mention about derogatory speech).

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?
You said that was "in reference to this".
The bit of "this" which defined "extremist" was as follows:

What is an extremist view?
Generally it refers to views that blithely reject well-established facts. The views themselves may or may not be hateful, but they are always delusional. Such views seem like an innocuous theory, but they often aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism.
It is not possible to define these with precision, so I will decide on a case by case basis, with consultation if necessary.
We are concerned primarily with Buddhist extremist views, but other forms of anti-reality extremism are included, such as climate change denial.
Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.
Examples of non-hateful extremist views include:

The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka.
Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence.
The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist.
Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).

In that context, "extremist" is defined as meaning "blithely reject well-established facts" (with examples).
So are you asking, "is it possible to reject statements which reject well-established facts, without yourself rjecting well-established facts"?
Anyway I think the Four Great References ask you to consider statements "without approval and without scorn", and compare those statements to other statements before deciding whether to accept or reject them.
I suppose they have done something like that with those statements (e.g. compared "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" with other "well-established facts"), found that they contradict, and decided not to accept them.
Incidentally I think you have a different view on this topic -- perhaps I'm misquoting you but I remember you, Samana, as expressing disapproval of someone who rejected a statement like, "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" -- because in your opinion a statement like that is associated with someone's faith (in Buddhism), and to reject the statement might be to decrease that person's faith (and decreasing someone's faith is a bad thing).
Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate?
I think the opening verses of the Dhammapada advocate against "hate" and say that "hate" is not right.
It uses the word avera (i.e. "a + vera").
I think of this word as meaning "without hate" or "non-hate" -- but Ven. Sujato now translates that as "love", saying,

Negatives in Pali often have a stronger sense than in English, so avera is indeed a synonym for mettā.

Another question is whether a site like SuttaCentral should feel obliged to accept, tolerate, welcome, or permit (and not censor or delete) every post, no matter what it says and how it says -- even "extremist" and "hateful" posts.
If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?
I think that the Vinaya doesn't expect a sangha to welcome or even to tolerate every view -- it expects "schisms" to be resolved, may eventually forbid someone from attending meetings, and isn't obliged to accept everyone (no matter what they say) in the first place.
I'm not saying that SuttaCentral is a Sangha, but I think that -- some consensus or social contract (or rules) on what's said, how it's said, what's on-topic -- is a feature of almost every "community" that I know of.
A possible exception is a public community. For example people have little choice but to be a citizen of a country, they're required to belong to that community. In exchange the country might (or might not) have "free speech" laws where the government and the government's laws try to be permissive about what people are allowed to say.
That's not so true of private communities, or voluntary associations -- where you can choose to join (or not) a community and the community can choose (or not) whether to accept that, and on what terms and conditions.

How would, when aware of fraud, join such a community at first place. The "issue" is the presentation of lies as cheep politic, like here. It's not about "I have a right". Why wishing to take over a gathering of fools?

Of views, such as "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka." is surely the most harmless one. To kill one on such delieve is fatal evil.

Of course one greegy, nurishes from corruptions left overs, the plunder of communists, might fear to judge right. So how could a consumer ever speech rightly...

"even "extremist" and "hateful" posts", my person never saw such, but killing and censuring when pointing out faults and extrems a lot.

Of views, such as "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka." is surely the most harmless one. I agree that's not a topic I'd want to argue about. If it were true that it's "nationalism" ("aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism") I'm not sure that (i.e. nationalism) a good thing -- the really most extreme forms of nationalism have in the past involved "ethnic cleansing". There are suttas like AN 10.69 which identify certain topics as unfit topics of conversation.

What's the different in "ethicl cleaning" here? Killing (taking ones existance) is not a light transcression, also to encourage others to such. A fool who approaches a fool (or strange views), or? It's all about identification-views.

"Ethnic cleansing" means literally killing people, or forcing them out of the country they live in, because of a factor they cannot control (i.e. their ethnicity). The other is saying that there are some are topics of conversation which the moderator (and perhaps the community) doesn't want to see/allow/discuss/moderate on their internet site. That's certainly a difference, isn't it, if not the difference?

What's the different? No. Purely, and in regard of mindstates and "stupidy" simply the same. And if acting with such fraud under the robe or lable of Arahats, most downward directed for all involved and approving such.

What's the different? Well, in practice, one would involve mass-murdering people; whereas the other would involve avoiding certain topics of conversation (or, I'm not sure, avoiding conversation with people who insist on posting certain types and topics of conversation).

Avoiding, stepping back, is wise. Harming and fighting unbeloved or wrong (if even!) is feeding the wheel of kamma potencialy.

'Hate nothing except hatred', right. Like craving is abandoned by relying on craving, as desire is abandoned by reliance on the desire for abandonment. Is it now so that we can infer that hate is abandoned in reliance on hate for hatred? I think that it is agreeable if one explains that 'hatred for hatred' is to be understood as 'discernment of hatred as undesirable and being averse to the disagreeable'.

As for the only thing that's good to kill: SN 1.71, yes. And how to kill: Dhp 3

Aside of the issue that there is not even evidence that those killed have hateful views...

I dont understand sir, perhaps i misunderstood your question or expressed myself poorly. I dont understand the 'dying with hateful views part'

My guess is that @SamanaJohann is saying is that a moderator's banning somebody from SuttaCentral is like "killing" that person -- and that there's "not even evidence" that those "killed" (i.e. banned from the site for so-called hate-speech) have "hateful views".

Nyom Chris, if in the right mood, is outstanding discerning and if able to share, shares. How ever: good if trying to answer in a way that does not oppose the very basics of Dhamma, if no more idea about it.

For many surely a new aspect, not heard before: Maybe useful, also to increase the value of extended answers: How should Monks, Nuns, Lay follower act when quarrelsome Monks arrive?, possible to draw back to other communities and relations as well.
There is "hopefully" no need to talk on the consequences of monks not dare to "kill" and censure, banner and encourage people to do all that bad things, even public... (the case sample, of course, is a hopeless matter of total basic wrong view).
[Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for release from this wheel]


text:
Sankhara meditation
Could someone explain to me how to meditate in order to see how the sankharas can be manipulated and changed so to not feel that the current situation is fixed and a must and helpless. I read somewhere that this was possible and in my personal practice that would be really helpful. From what I have heard there are  3 Sankharas : Kaya,vaci and citta or mano. How do i manipulate them during meditation and in what way do i manipulate them so I can see that there is free will and that I am not helpless could you describe with what particular technique do i manipulate or change a particular sankhara, I really need to understand it so that I can feel that these things are not a must because it seems like a must for me. (especially my feelings  seems fixed and like a must)
Perhaps my perceptions are messing things up to so I really want to feel that I have power over my situation by direct seeing that these things are not a must and get be manipulated and changed beacuse now it seems like a must. But I would appreciate all possible advice you could give not just about manipulating feelings during meditation but all other Sankharas or aggregates and the technique used and which sankhara or aggregate is manipulated during that particular technique.
Also 1 more question. Are sankharas volitions (things we do uknowingly that can be stopped with free will) to me its like they have power over me is that ultimate truth, Because from my first question as you saw there was  Monk that said that theese things could be manipulated that seems like they are not a must and can with free will and skillful attention,mindfulness be stopped if yes please tell me how and please describe how and what is happening and I will try it. Thank you all.

Formations (Sankhara)
There are 3 kinds of formations as you identified:

Ayya, how many kinds of formation are there?
Avuso Visākha, there are these 3 kinds of formation

bodily formation, kāya,saṅkhāra
verbal formation, vacī,saṅkhāra
thought formation. citta,saṅkhāra

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
What are they?

But what, ayya, is bodily formation, what is verbal formation, what is thought
  formation?
Visākha,

The in-and-out breaths, are bodily formation.
Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.
Perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
Why these?

But, ayya,

why are the in-and-out-breaths bodily formation;
why are thinking and pondering verbal formation;
why are perception and feeling thought formation?

The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body.

Therefore, they are bodily formation.

Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech.

Therefore, thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind.

Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
Formations are due to volition and cause the arising of future volition. Also, it is volition which is the forerunner for karmic action. Since karma is backed by volition doing karmic action result in formations.
One cannot manipulate the formations as they are not-self. (Dhammapada Verse 279: "All phenomena (dhammas) are without Self"; when one sees this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the khandhas). This is the Path to Purity) The past store of formations will remain as they are until they give results. Only then will past formations dissolve, will they cease to exist. The timing of karma is not in one's control. This cannot be changed or manipulated, as this is not in one's control.
But one can calm them (this is like stilling a muddy pond: the water becomes clear but the mud remains), prevent them from arising or create new ones to dilute past formations.
Caliming Formations
Calming Bodily Formations
To calm bodily formation or the breath one can use breath meditation. The calming does not happen immediately but when one reacher stage 4 of the breath meditation:

(4) He trains himself thus: ‘Calming the bodily formation (of breath), I will breathe in’;
He trains himself thus: ‘Calming the bodily formation (of breath), I will breathe out’;

Ānâpāna,sati Sutta
Calming Verbal Formations
Verbal formation or thinking and pondering of the mind is calmed by concentration.
What is concentration and how is concentration achieved?

(11) Now, ayya,
what is mental cultivation?
What are the objects of mental cultivation?
What are the requisites of mental cultivation?
What is the cultivation of samadhi?
Avuso Visākha, the one-pointedness of mind (cittassa ek’aggatā)—this is samadhi [mental
  stillness].
The 4 focuses of mindfulness (sati’paṭṭhāna)—these are the mental signs (nimitta) for samadhi.
The 4 right efforts (samma-p.padhāna)—these are the requisites of samadhi.
These states that are much cultivated, associated with, grown—this is here the cultivation of
  samadhi.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
When initial and sustained through stops then thinking and pondering stops. This happens in the 2nd Jhana and beyond. See: Vitakka,vicāra by Piya Tan.

For more on The 4 focuses of mindfulness (sati’paṭṭhāna) see: Mahā Satipatthāna
Sutta
For more on The 4 right efforts (samma-p.padhāna) see: (Catu) Padhāna Sutta

Calming Through Formations
Steps 7 and 8 of Anapanasati deals with calming the mind. The 2nd in the 2nd triad which is Mindfulness of Feelings. One uses the blissful feeling arisen from the breath meditation to do the calming.

(7) He trains himself thus: ‘Knowing the mental formations [mental functions], I will breathe in’;
He trains himself thus: ‘Knowing the mental formations [mental functions], I will breathe out’;
(8) He trains himself thus: ‘Calming the mental formations [mental functions], I will breathe in’;
He trains himself thus: ‘Calming the mental formations [mental functions], I will breathe out’;

Ānâpāna,sati Sutta
Stoping and Preventing Formation
Cessation of Through Formations (and other formations)
Though formations or perception and feeling are stopped by being in Nirodha or Pala Samapatthi. This is the cessation of perception and feeling. Nirodha Samapatthi is achieved after This is achieved in the 8th Jhana. Pala Samapatthi is achieved when one realises Nirvana through the practice of the Noble 8 Fold Path and completing the 3 fold training. See discussion in Cūla Vedalla Sutta.
In Nirodha Samapatthi, bodily and verbal formations would also be already suspended. See Cūla Vedalla Sutta. Also, all past formations will be suspended. Once one comes out of it the part formations will become effective again.
NB: for an enlightened person past formations are effective but new formations do not arise.
Preventing Formation from Arising
Feeling result in craving according to dependent origination. Craving leads to formations. In order to prevent formations arising one has to break the arising of craving at feelings.

The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikshus, is dependent arising?
With ignorance as condition, there are volitional
  formations;
with volitional formations
  as condition, there is consciousness;
with consciousness as condition, there is name-and-form;
with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense-bases;
with the six sense-bases as condition, there is contact;
with contact as condition, there is feeling;
with feeling as condition, there is craving;
with craving as condition, there is clinging;
with clinging as condition, there is existence;
with existence as condition, there is birth;
with birth as condition, there arise decay and death,
sorrow, lamentation, physical pain,
mental pain and despair.
Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta
Past conditioning creates input for the dependent origination. How you react creates conditioning now which gives result in the future.
The way not to create new formations at the present moment is:

you have to know the feeling
know that it is impermanent
do not cling onto the feeling

To further elaborate:

Know the feeling

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Know that the feels are impermanent so do not cling onto them

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Also, see: Nibbida by Piya Tan
Accumulating Formations
Accumulating Karmicly Positive Formations
You can achieve this by doing positive bodily, verbal and mental action.
You can engage in:

Giving (Dāna-maya)
Virtue (Sīla-maya)
Mental development (Bhāvanā-maya)
Honoring others (Apacāyana-maya)
Offering service (Veyyāvaca-maya)
Dedicating (or transferring) merit to others (Pāli:Pattidāna-maya; Sanskrit: puṇyapariṇāmanā)
Rejoicing in others' merit (Pattānumodanā-maya)
Listening to teachings (Dhammassavana-maya)
Instructing others in the teachings (Dhammadesanā-maya)
Straightening one's own views in accordance with the Teachings (Diṭṭhujukamma)

Merit (Buddhism)
Also, the accumulation of more formations with positive karmic potent can dilute past karma. This is like adding more water to an existing amount of salt, i.e., dilutes the taste of salt. See: Loṇa,phala Sutta
Not Accumulating Karmicly Negative Formations
You can achieve this refraining from negative bodily, verbal and mental action.
You can refrain from:

In giving up the taking of life, the practitioner will accomplish freedom from vexations;
In giving up stealing, the practitioner will find security in life, economically, socially and spiritually;
In giving up wrongful (sexual) conduct, the practitioner will find inner peace and peace in the family life;
In giving up lying, the practitioner will attain purity of speech and mind;
In giving up slander, the practitioner will be protected socially and spiritually;
In giving up harsh language, the practitioner's words will be more effective;
In giving up frivolous speech, the practitioner will become wise and dignified;
In giving up lust, the practitioner finds freedom in life through contentment and simplicity;
In giving up hatred, the practitioner will develop kindness and gentleness;
In giving up wrong views, the practitioner will not falter in the good and spiritual path.

Merit (Buddhism)
This is only like stopping the adding of salt into a glass of water. A lesser amount of salt means the salty taste is less. The salt one already put in will remain. See: Loṇa,phala Sutta
If this is combined by adding more water like in the example above, while not adding more salt. The salty taste will quickly dilute.
Controlling One's Perceptions Due to Feelings
Regarding perceptions, they also arise due to feeling.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
For a worldly person perceptions, thoughts, views that arise are subjected to the 4 pervertions (vipallasa), which are:

what is impermanent is taken to be permanent;
what is painful is taken to be pleasurable;
what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and
what is impure [unattractive or repulsive] is taken to be pure [attractive or beautiful]

One should try to break this train also when feelins arise. The method to deal with preception is also as in the previous part, hence I will not repeat it here.
If

perceptions,
thoughts, or
views

do arise one should straighten them by contemplating:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

See Vipallasa Sutta
Dantabhūmi Sutta one should abandon thoughts with regard to the Sathipattanas:

(1) dwell observing the body in the body,
and do not think (any) thought regarding the body;
(2) dwell observing feelings in feelings,
and do not think (any) thought regarding feelings;
(3) dwell observing the mind in the mind,
and do not think (any) thought regarding the mind [thoughts];
(4) dwell observing dharmas in the dharmas,
and do not think (any) thought regarding dharmas [realities].

This way Vipallasa will not arise.
Also, concept proliferation and throughs can be subdued by the 2nd Jhana and beyond.
Summary
To calm bodily formation

do 1st triad of the Anapanasati Sutta. Bodily formations are fully suspended in the 4th Jhana as breathing stops.

To calm verbal formation

practice 2nd Jhana of above

To calm through the formation

do the 2nd triad of the Anapanasati Sutta. Though formations are fully suspended in Nirodha Samapatthi as both feeling and perception are suspended.

To stop the accumulation of formations

contemplate feeling are impermanent
rid the mind of perversions (vipallasa)
Jhana

To make the accumulation of positive karmic formations

be moral in bodily, verbal and mental conduct

Not to accumulate of negative karmic formations

refrain from negative bodily, verbal and mental conduct

Thank you, this is very illuminating

You are welcome.

I made a few more improvements. See if it is better now.

Looks great, thanks again

Thank you very much. This will be of great help. When you said "One cannot manipulate the formations as they are not-self". Does it mean that Sanharas cant be changed (by manipulated i mean changed during meditation) by meditation because they are not self, beacuse it seems obvious to me by reading what you wrote from the other things that it was possible to change and manipulate them, sorry if I ask this stupid question but I really want to solve this doubt.

You can (1) calm them, (2) They Stop Sometimes. But one cannot change the store of you past formations.

I updated my answer see it this is more clear now.

@Guest5 any more feedback?

Ok I think I understand what you mean now , its not possible to change the store of your past formations means you cant change them but you can stop them, (does it mean stopping permanent) that seems like a positive thing to hear which means despite my catastrophic bad sankharas from past I can be free from them if I attain liberation, in other words that they have no power left if Nibbana is achieved. Is this true?

@Guest5 Hi! You can learn to see sankhara and to not let yourself be dragged by them, if they have unwholesome intentions underlying. The force of habits is strong, and when unwholesome habits arise and express themselves, you can be mindful of them. But also, you can gradually cultivate wholesome sankhara which can lead you to liberation. One of the main purposes of the practice is to change your unwholesome habitual reactions and to cultivate new wholesome ones. Kind regards!

If a past formation does not give its karmic results, perhaps due to meditation or good deeds, and you become enlightened before it has a chance to give results, then they will be stopped permanently. Again you do not know and do not know which formations will ripen to give karmic results and you exactly will prevent it ripening, if there is or there isn't a possibility to stop its ripening. Also, it is full but temporarily stopped in Niroda Samapathi also after an enlightened being passes away.

Could someone explain to me how to meditate in order to see how the sankharas can be manipulated and changed so to not feel that the
  current situation is fixed and a must and helpless.

Buddhist practice primarily uses wisdom but also concentration, particularly when wisdom has developed concentration. "Remembering" to be wise or use wisdom is the meaning of "mindfulness". "Mindfulness" is "remembering". Mindfulness remembers to bring & use wisdom.

From what I have heard there are 3 Sankharas : Kaya, vaci and citta or mano.

"Mano sankhara" is found in more mundane teachings about "kamma" and is possibly an Abhidhamma teaching added at a later time to the Pali suttas. We can ignore this matter for now and say:

Kaya sankhara = in & out breathing
Vaci sankhara = thinking
Citta sankhara = perception & feeling

Note: The word "sankhara" above does not mean "formation", "fabrication" or "condition". It means "fabricator" or "conditioner". For example, thinking is the verbal conditioner (vaci sankhara) because it conditions or fabricates speech. Try to be logical. Try to avoid translations that create confusion.

How do i manipulate them during meditation and in what way do i manipulate them so I can see that there is free will and that I am not
  helpless could you describe with what particular technique do i
  manipulate or change a particular sankhara.

Citta sankhara is too subtle to manipulate or control for a newbie. Therefore, you should focus on controlling kaya sankhara & vaci sankhara.
How to control vaci sankhara is described in MN 19 and many other suttas, such as MN 61 & MN 20.
How to control kaya sankhara is described in MN 118.

Perhaps my perceptions are messing things up to so I really want to feel that I have power over my situation by direct seeing that these things are not a must and get be manipulated and changed beacuse now it seems like a must.

The problem is your "views" & "thinking" rather than "perceptions". Generally, for a stable mind, it is moral views (good & bad) that need to be sorted out. Thus, refer to MN 61 & MN 19, as I suggested.

Are sankharas volitions (things we do uknowingly that can be stopped with free will) to me its like they have power over me is that ultimate truth.

The word "sankhara" does not always mean "volitional formations". In certainly contexts, such as 2nd condition of Dependent Origination, sankhara are not "volitional" but are non-volitional; arising spontaneously from ignorance; without our decision or control: so it is best to give up the translation "volitional formations".
If you read MN 19, as I recommended, you will understand how there is unwise thinking arising without free will (called "sankhara" in Dependent Origination) and there is also wise thinking (called "paṭisañcikkhato") that is used to stop the unwise thinking . MN 19 is the most important sutta about controlling vaci sankhara or ignorant thinking.
In summary, instead of being concerned with the term "volitional formations", please focus on two terms, namely: (i) unwise thinking; and (ii) wise thinking.
Like the Buddha-To-Be, you must use wise thinking to conquer unwise thinking.

Because from my first question as you saw there was Monk that said
  that these things could be manipulated that seems like they are not a
  must and can with free will and skillful attention,mindfulness be
  stopped if yes please tell me how and please describe how and what is
  happening and I will try it. Thank you all.

Your questions are answered in MN 19. Read MN 19 carefully and practise the teaching until you can emulate the Buddha-To-Be and walk in his noble footsteps.
Also, try to control your breathing (kaya sankhara), to help you calm down. At the very least, for a short time, practise some deliberate long breathing, including counting breaths. While this is not true Anapanasati, it can still help control the mind, body & impulses ("asava").
However, the most important practise is controlling the vaci sankhara using the methods in MN 19, MN 61, MN 20, etc. Use wise thinking to conquer unwise thinking.
Once you can control your thoughts so your thoughts are only moral wholesome non-harmful thoughts, then you can practise Anapanasati in the proper more refined way & attain stream-entry.

Thank you for your answer Dhammadhatu. Could you please also provide me with the Sutta that talks about  controling citta sankhara.

Just to continue on what you wrote Dhammadhatu So does it mean that it is wrong to say even in 2nd condition of dependent origination that sankhara is volitional action which we do based on free will because take for instance something that we say or a thought that we have, was it said or thought of with free will or was it out of our control, or is it instead  as I thought automatic arising wihout our decision or control, but is it possible to by working on ignorance to eliminate these automatic sankharas, Once again thank you for your post it helps. I am  a big mess but I feel hope now,

If it is possible to stop sankharas with eradicating ignorance does it show that ultimately the sankharas were volitional if there is a possibility of eradicating them, Maybe from our point of view when we have no knowledge of ignorance it is a must even though ultimately if we had known reality it would not be a must anymore, am I right about this Dhammadhatu.

A Mahayana answer here, based on the live chain of enlightened teachers starting from the Buddha, rather than on books. This is what I was taught by a teacher who mastered it in practice and then passed it on.
Sankhara/Samskaras are tendencies to automatically react a certain way (physically, mentally, verbally, emotionally), based on some previous experience.
For example, if you had a painful experience of getting assaulted, beaten up, and humiliated by a group of guys with shaved heads, you may have a fear of shaved heads for the rest of your life. Whenever you see a man with shaved head, you may have an automatic reaction of fear and aversion.
Or, for example, when you were a very young boy, your mom had a certain hair style. And now you are attracted to young women with the same hair style.
I'm oversimplifying on purpose, but you get the idea. This type of subconscious preconception is a Sankhara.
In meditation your goal is to find Sankharas for the issues that bother you. Starting from the most painful ones and then going smaller and smaller. Or, you can do it going from the present time back into the past, one by one. Once you see each, you need to process them and let go. You process them by reviewing. Once you review it and process it, the emotional energy associated with the sankhara will get released, and you will be able to let it go.
Here is how to review them properly. For example, today you met a man and you felt very stressed but did not know why. Go over today's situation. Relive it in your imagination. Then focus on the feeling you feel in or around your body, when you think about the situation. Try to go "inside" that feeling in or near your body. Concentrate on that feeling. The mind will give you a hint by showing you a flash of the "sign" it associates with the feeling. In this example, that sign is a picture of shaved head. You realize that you felt stressed because the man had a shaved head so you felt unsafe. Keep concentrating on the feeling and the sign at the same time, and try to remember how they are connected in the past. In this example you will remember the past assault. Go over the experience of assault and allow all your locked up emotions come out. Now think about the man you met today. Connect the past and the present. In both cases the sign was the same - the shaved head - but situations were different. Look at your mind and try to see directly how these past and present memories and feelings connect in your head. Keep processing it until you can let it go.

I knew someone, who for  long while was continually unhappy, about several events which were long past, events from many years earlier. As it says, in the Dhammapada,

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

I didn't understand -- I tried to tell he she'd be happier if she didn't think that way, didn't "hold" that kind of grudge.
She did try (non-Buddhist) therapy or counselling, for post-traumatic stress, she said the most helpful of that was some advice that might be similar to Dhammadhatu's answer now -- to maybe "breathe long" and pay attention to the present, that's as an alternative to reliving the past as a "panic attack".
It's not easy though.
I'd like to add that perhaps it isn't only a matter of meditation.
Buddhism also recommends -- or perhaps, initially recommends -- that you do good, that you have good friends, disengage from hostile relationships. Maybe that's not a matter of "controlling" sankharas, but of replacing harmful ones (including "learned helplessness"), substituting something else.
You wrote in comment, "its not possible to change the store of your past formations means you cant change them but you can stop them" -- and maybe so but I'm not sure that's quite right. Even if it isn't possible to change the past, I think t's axiomatic that our  present choices and intentions affect the future, for good or ill.
Aiming for "stopping" isn't wrong, but perhaps that's a later stage of the practice.
This sutta suggests it starts with aiming for a state where you don't regret, don't feel remorse -- which might be the kind of thing that Samana Johann's answer is suggesting.

On this occation: Crossing over the Flood (Intro from commentary can be put aside)

Householder, interested,
It wouldn't work to see through the mind and it's aspects if one has not penetrated form, has left home.
So total not recommended if in a householder stand, as mind khandhas are much to quick and yet not able to distinguished them from form.
Good to focus on generosity while mindful observing whats coming up, virtue and the six primarily anussatis, and if good also to do Anapanna and of course reflection on death and decay.
On a further stage focus on the senses and their objects, to learn about nama rupa.
Thats sankharas good to hold on in this way. Otherwise to much danger to develope householder-equanimity and gain to be cut off easy and very long long time.
Once firm in virtue and holding on eight precepts and more, it's time that meditation makes sense and wouldn't harm.
Focus on all 10 kinds of merits will bring one toward path.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

On free will;
Buddha explains that formations are rooted in desire which has ignorance as a requisite condition.
A beggining point such that before that point there was no ignorance can not be discerned. Therefore a begging point where before that point there were no formations can not be discerned
A beginning point such that before that point was no past can not be discerned.
A beginning point such that before that point there were no formations can not be discerned.
Therefore a beginning point where formations spontaneously came into existence has never been.
Therefore a begging where everything became predetermined can not be true.
As for controlling formations;
One should analyze one's thoughts, guard the senses and take note of one s mind.
Ie if you get an idea of finding a wife. Instead of thinking; 'One who has a wife has the pleasure of having a wife'; one considers; 'One who has a wife has the troubles of having a wife'.
By developing that perspective of unattractiveness one will realize that by resolving on getting a wife one is resolving on causing oneself stress. Which is cruel and is perversely inappropriate...
As such one can attend appropriately to anything, seeing that what is impermanent is stress and is unfit for relishing if present and is unfit for pursuit if not yet begotten.


text:
Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times?
Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present?
If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past?

I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future.

It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

These are covered in the:

15 Wrong / Right Views
16 Doubts
108 thought-courses motivated by craving mentioned in this answer

15 Wrong / Right Views

Let go of the past
“How, bhikshus, does one pursue the past?
(1) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such form in the past.’
(2) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’
(3) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’
(4) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’
(5) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’
This is how, bhikshus, one pursue the past.
And how, bhikshus, does one not pursue the past?
(1) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘I had such form in the past.’
(2) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’
(3) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’
(4) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’
(5) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’
This is how, bhikshus, one does not pursue the past.
Let go of the future
And how, bhikshus, does one hold fond hope for the future?
(6) One seeks delight there thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’
(7) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’
(8) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’
(9) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’
(10) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’
This is how, bhikshus, one holds fond hope of the future.
And how, bhikshus, does one not hold fond hope for the future?
(6) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’
(7) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’
(8) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’
(9) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’
(10) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’
This is how, bhikshus, one does not hold fond hope of the future.
Let go of the present
And how, bhikshus, is one dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises?
(11) Here, bhikshus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, who has no regard for true persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma,
regards
  - form as self, or
  - self as possessed of form, or
  - form as in self, or
  - self as in form.
(12) He regards

feeling as self, or
self as possessed of feeling, or
feeling as in self, or
self as in feeling.

(13) He regards

perception as self, or
self as possessed of perception, or
perception as in self, or
self as in perception.

(14) He regards

formations as self, or
self as possessed of formations, or
formations as in self, or
self as in formations.

(15) He regards

consciousness as self, or
self as possessed of consciousness, or
consciousness as in self, or
self as in consciousness.

This is how, bhikshus, one is dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises.
And how, bhikshus, is one not dragged along [undistracted] by each present state as it arises?
(11) Here, bhikshus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma, who has regard for true persons and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma,
does not regard

form as self,
nor self as possessed of form,
nor form as in self,
nor self as in form.

(12) He does not regard

feeling as self,
nor self as possessed of feeling,
nor feeling as in self,
nor self as in feeling.

(13) He does not regard

perception as self,
nor self as possessed of perception,
nor perception as in self,
nor self as in perception.

(14) He does not regard

formations as self,
nor self as possessed of formations,
nor formations as in self,
nor self as in formations.

Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta
16 Doubts

He unwisely attends in this way:
(1) ‘Was I in the past?’
(2) ‘Was I not in the past?’
(3) ‘What was I in the past?’
(4) ‘How was I in the past?’
(5) ‘Having been what, did I become what in the past? [What was I before I became that in the past?]’
(6) ‘Will I be in the future?’
(7) ‘Am I not in the future?’
(8) ‘What will I be in the future?’
(9) ‘How will I be in the future?’
(10) ‘Having been what, will I become what in the future? [What now would lead me to that future
  state?]’”
Or else, right now he inwardly has doubts about the present, thus:
(11) ‘Am I?’
(12) ‘Am I not?’
(13) ‘What am I?’
(10) ‘Having been what, what will I become in the future? [What now would lead me to that
  future state?]’”
(11) ‘Am I?’
(12) ‘Am I not?’
(13) ‘What am I?’
(14) ‘How am I?’
(15) ‘Where has this being come from?’
(16) ‘Where will it [this being] go?’”

Sabb’āsava Sutta
I have quoted the Pali Suttas. I would believe the Āgama texts may have a similar parallel.

great answer, thanks, though i'd also like a mahayana one (if it's any different i mean)

@user3293056 - Mahayana denies the metaphysical reality of time and the 'I' that believes itself to be subject to it. Perhaps check-out 'Divine Instant' or 'Perennial Now'. The answer above seems to cover the Mahayana doctrine.    For the sage the only time is now.

I am not an expert in Mahayana. Perhaps you might be able to find the Agama parallel of the Suttas I mentioned in my answer from: https://suttacentral.net/

E.g. for Sabb’āsava Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/mn2; for Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta : https://suttacentral.net/mn131; I could not fine (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta in SC

See if any of these match: https://suttacentral.net/ea40.6/lzh/taisho, https://suttacentral.net/t31/lzh/taisho, https://suttacentral.net/ma10/lzh/taisho,

i always assumed that the agamas are incomplete truths in all mahayana buddhism?

There are the 108 craving verbalization which will answer good householders question.
It's how ever good to relate ones actions as own and that there will be a fruit of them in the future, so the path is not one of "not mine" or "mine" extremes, but both used at proper time.
Much urged always: DON'T Waste your short lasting time of a seldom human and blessed existence!
Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta is sure for good assistance and given for liberation.
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

this is fine, but reads more like advice than an answer!

What's the different householder and for what reason was it asked? Why does good householder read anything if not just for entertaining and amuse?

just to understand an idea!

And to understand, see for one self, is there an advice where and on what to look needed, good householder?

yes to conceive (you in) the past or future or present is the opposite of the result and so opposite of the practice, as it is said in the suttanipata.

“A purified conqueror whose coverings are removed, a master of things, gone beyond, without impulse,
  skilled in the knowledge of the cessation of conditioned things, he
  would properly wander in the world. (14)
“One who has overcome mental constructs about things past and future, having overcome, wise about purity, released from all the
  sense bases, he would properly wander in the world. (15)
“Having known the state, having penetrated the Dhamma, having seen clearly the abandoning of the influxes, with the utter
  destruction of all acquisitions, 116 he would properly wander in the
  world.” (16)

it is not good to be ''Concerned, too, with the future or the past''

Stuck in the cave, densely covered over, dwelling immersed in bewilderment, [152] a person such as this is far from seclusion, for
  in the world sensual pleasures are not easily abandoned. (1)
Based upon desire, bound to enjoyment of existence, they let go with difficulty, for there is no release through others. Concerned,
  too, with the future or the past, they hanker for these sensual
  pleasures or earlier ones. (2)

again here

“How does he see, how does he behave, the one who is said to be ‘peaceful’? When asked by me, O Gotama, describe the supreme person.”
  (1)
“Devoid of craving before the breakup,” (said the Blessed One), “not dependent on the past, not to be reckoned in the middle, for him
  there are no preferences. (2) [167]
“He is without anger, unafraid, not boastful, not regretful, of speaking with reflection, not restless: he is truly a muni controlled
  in speech. (3)
“He is without attachment to the future; he does not sorrow over the past. As a seer of seclusion in the midst of contacts, he is not
  led astray among views. (4)

For minds able to practise the Noble Path, the Buddha taught when the past is recollected, it is to be recollected as merely 'aggregates' ('khandha'). In other words, the self-becomings or adherences ('nivasa') of the past must be seen as delusions or ignorance from the past. This is the 1st Knowledge for Enlightened. The Buddha taught:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect
  their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it
  is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling
  whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi


text:
Is ignorance a kammically active volitional formation, or a kammically passive fruit of past kamma?
As the title indicates, I'm not sure how to classify 'avijja' in Dependent Co-arising:
Is it a volitional formation which produces a certain kind of vipaka, or is it a vipaka in itself?
In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Samyutta Nikaya,in the preface, there's a section dedicated to explain some words and their specific translations. In there, sankhara (as a nidana) is defined as one of the kammically active factors, alongside with ignorance and craving. Do you agree with this interpretation?
Thanks in advance, and kind regards!

I'll be happy to know how to improve this question in order to make it better or more understandable. I'd appreciate any feedback to indicate the reason behind the downvote. Thanks in advance!

Householder Brian Díaz Flores, interested
Is ignorance a kammically active volitional formation, or a kammically passive fruit of past kamma?
Both, householder, ignorance is a matter of past actions and present, reaction of present contact (phassa).
Letting still existing avijja get touched, one nourishes it. By avoiding being touched on avijja, one destructs old kamma here and now and does not produce further. This is the way of uprooting avijja: reflecting, hearing the Dhamma and birth giving attention, proper attention.
Be touched!
If wishing to get more, but possible just entertaining, understanding about kamma, this generous work by Bhante Thanissaro may be of help: Karma Q & A
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

First Ignorance is really a lack of knowledge of something. It is by a knowledge that dukkha stops, contrary to some weird views invented by people, like taking vows, doing some ritual, or having some stimuli of the senses, like smelling some aroma, or hearing some sound..
Being a sotapanna  is really about knowledge and being an arhant is again about this special knowledge plus the execution of this knowledge and the knowledge of the execution of this special knowledge, like here in the suttanipata http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN391.pdf ,
728. “Sufferings in their many forms in the world
originate based on acquisition.
The ignorant dullard who creates acquisition 186
encounters suffering again and again.
Therefore, understanding, one should not create
acquisition,
contemplating it as the genesis and origin of suffering. (5)

199. Then its hollow head
is filled with the brain.
Led on by ignorance, the fool
conceives it as beautiful. (7)

277. “Harassing one who is self-developed,
led on by ignorance,
one does not know defilement
as the path leading to hell. (4)

It is not wrong to say that the ''travel again and again
    in the saṃsāra '' is due to ignorance.
729. “Those who travel again and again
in the saṃsāra of birth and death,
with its becoming thus, becoming otherwise:
that journey is due to ignorance. (6)
730. “It is because of ignorance, this great delusion,
that one has wandered on for so long.
But those beings who have gained clear knowledge
do not come back to renewed existence. 187 (7)

731. “Whatever suffering originates
is all conditioned by volitional activities.
With the cessation of volitional activities,
there is no origination of suffering. (8)
732. “When one has known this danger,
‘Suffering is conditioned by volitional activities,’
by the stilling of all volitional activities,
by the stopping of perceptions,
the destruction of suffering occurs
when one has known this as it really is. (9)

You cannot say that nibanna is the ''stilling of ignorance'', the contrary would be weird at best.
Then the method to remove this ignorance is always the same
1025. “Bāvari asks about the head
and the splitting of the head.
Explain this, Blessed One!
Remove our doubt, O rishi!” (50)
1026. “Know ignorance to be ‘the head’;
clear knowledge is ‘head-splitting’
when conjoined with faith, mindfulness,
concentration, desire, and energy.” (51)

1106. “The abandoning of both,
(Udaya,” said the Blessed One),
“sensual desires and dejection;
the dispelling of mental dullness,
the warding off of regrets: (2)
1107. “purified by equanimity and mindfulness,
preceded by thought on the Dhamma—
I call this emancipation by final knowledge,
the breaking up of ignorance.” (3) [215]
1108. “By what is the world fettered?
What is its means of traveling about?
By the abandoning of what
is ‘nibbāna’ spoken of?” (4)
1109. “The world is fettered by delight;
thought is its means of traveling about.
It is by the abandoning of craving
that ‘nibbāna’ is spoken of.” (5)
342 The Suttanipāta
1110. “How does one live mindfully
for consciousness to cease?
Having come to ask the Blessed One,
let us hear that word of yours.” (6)
1111. “For one not seeking delight in feeling
internally and externally,
for one living mindfully thus,
consciousness ceases.” (7)