user11541: In the dependent origin co-arising, ignorance came before consciousness and self.In fact we begin with ignorance. This ignorance is the ignorance about the 4 noble truths.
My questions are :
Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?
How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?

user5000: 
"Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of
  dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?"

You were ignorant.
Being ignorant, you created self.
Being ignorant, you created consciousness.

"How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?"

It cannot. 
Where there is ignorance, there is consciousness.
Where there is wisdom, there is no consciousness.
It's because you don't know what is consciousness, that you are bewildered by my answer.
And what is consciousness?
It's a fabrication. It's made up. It's fabricated with mental and physical activities. That is consciousness.
It is you fabricating this consciousness. 
Now ask yourself, who is that "you" that I'm referring to in my answer?
No matter where you'd look, you would not find this "you".
So, who is ignorant if there is no "you" that can be found?
You is ignorant.
It's because you don't know who you are, that you are bewildered by my answer.
Find out who you are. Meditate. You will not find this "you". It's when not being able to find this "you", that you are seeing who you are. Once you see, examine how it works and truth will be realized: from ignorance arises fabrications, from fabrications consciousness, from consciousness birth, etc.

user471: There is no permanent eternal self. But there is still an impermanent self, that arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates, that arises and disappears. This self is the doer. This doer-self (or rather the citta - mind-stream?) was ignorant.
Remember the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.
The commentary on Attakārī Sutta by K. Nizamis:

“Natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro.” (‘There is no self-doer, there is
  no other-doer.’) Some people might have expected the Buddha to have
  approved highly of this naïve negative doctrine. The fact that he very
  succinctly and effectively refutes it is extremely instructive and of
  great significance for gaining a better understanding of the depth,
  subtlety, and holism of the Buddha’s actual teaching. Although the
  Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal, immutable,
  independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught that there
  is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful to speak
  of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions and
  deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
  being. It should be quite clear from its usage in this sutta, and from
  the argument of this sutta, that kāra in atta-kāra must be an agent
  noun, “doer, maker”: this is strongly entailed, for example, by the
  Buddha’s statement: “ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ
  attakāro ayaṃ parakāro”, “initiating beings are clearly discerned: of
  (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer”


11541: <p>In the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dependent origin co-arising</a>, ignorance came before consciousness and self.In fact we begin with ignorance. This ignorance is the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/avijja.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ignorance about the 4 noble truths</a>.</p>

<p>My questions are :</p>

<p>Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?</p>

<p>How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?</p>
 5000: <blockquote>
  <p>"Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of
  dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You were ignorant.</p>

<p>Being ignorant, you created self.</p>

<p>Being ignorant, you created consciousness.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It cannot. </p>

<p>Where there is ignorance, there is consciousness.</p>

<p>Where there is wisdom, there is no consciousness.</p>

<p>It's because you don't know what is consciousness, that you are bewildered by my answer.</p>

<p>And what is consciousness?</p>

<p>It's a fabrication. It's made up. It's fabricated with mental and physical activities. That is consciousness.</p>

<p>It is you fabricating this consciousness. </p>

<p>Now ask yourself, who is that "you" that I'm referring to in my answer?</p>

<p>No matter where you'd look, you would not find this "you".</p>

<p>So, who is ignorant if there is no "you" that can be found?</p>

<p>You is ignorant.</p>

<p>It's because you don't know who you are, that you are bewildered by my answer.</p>

<p>Find out who you are. Meditate. You will not find this "you". It's when not being able to find this "you", that you are seeing who you are. Once you see, examine how it works and truth will be realized: from ignorance arises fabrications, from fabrications consciousness, from consciousness birth, etc.</p>
 471: <p>There is no permanent eternal self. But there is still an impermanent self, that arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates, that arises and disappears. This self is the doer. This doer-self (or rather the citta - mind-stream?) was ignorant.</p>

<p>Remember <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8164/471">the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism</a>.</p>

<p>The commentary on <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Attakārī Sutta</a> by K. Nizamis:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro.” (<strong>‘There is no self-doer, there is
  no other-doer.’</strong>) Some people might have expected the Buddha to have
  approved highly of this naïve negative doctrine. The fact that he very
  succinctly and effectively refutes it is extremely instructive and of
  great significance for gaining a better understanding of the depth,
  subtlety, and holism of the Buddha’s actual teaching. <strong>Although the
  Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal, immutable,
  independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught that there
  is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful to speak
  of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions and
  deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
  being</strong>. It should be quite clear from its usage in this sutta, and from
  the argument of this sutta, that kāra in atta-kāra must be an agent
  noun, “doer, maker”: this is strongly entailed, for example, by the
  Buddha’s statement: “ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ
  attakāro ayaṃ parakāro”, <strong>“initiating beings are clearly discerned: of
  (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer”</strong></p>
</blockquote>
