For AO1 you need to know:

The Arhat path and its four stages.
The Bodhisattva path. Six or ten paramitas, bhumis, Amitabha’s vow and the interrelation between wisdom and compassion.

For AO2 you need to be able to debate:

How essential the concepts of Bodhisattva and Arhat are to Buddhism.
Whether Bodhisattva or Arhat is the more legitimate concept/path.

The Arhat path and its four stages

Stream-enterer. The first stage is that of Sotāpanna literally meaning “one who enters the stream,”

Will be reborn human.
Has good moral behaviour.
Has gained ‘right view’ into anatman.
Still experiences the three poisons/fires.

Once Returner. The second stage is that of the Sakadāgāmī, literally meaning “one who once comes”.

Will return to the human world only once more and will attain Nirvana in that life.
The three poisons/fires are greatly decreased but still present.
Has developed greater concentration than a stream-enterer

Never-returner. The third stage is that of the Anāgāmī, literally meaning “one who does not come.”

Does not come back into human existence, or any lower world, after death.
Reborn in one of the “Pure Abodes” where they will attain Nivana or be reborn there a second time, but cannot be born into a lower state.
Has eliminated the restraints that bind beings to the cycle of rebirth, so is on the way to perfect and complete Enlightenment.
After entry to this stage, all of the worst hindrances, such as the three fires/poisons, completely drop away. A slight sense of self still remains, causing slight dissatisfaction (Dukkha).
They are peaceful and without desire, but still have a slight preference for positive rather than negative experiences.

Arahant. The fourth stage is a fully enlightened human being who has wholly abandoned saṃsāra, and will enter Parinibbāna after death, so will not be reborn in any world.

Any residual trace of a separate self has dissolved away.
The experience is usually blissful. Some compare it to falling into the depths of a cloud and disappearing.

The Bodhisattva path. Six or ten paramitas, bhumis and the interrelation between wisdom and compassion

The six paramitas are the stages of the Bodhisattva path. Paramita means perfection or to cross over to the other shore.

The Bodhisattva path begins with the arising of ‘bodhicitta’, which is the aspiration to strive for buddhahood for its own sake and the sake of helping others. The bodhisattva practises the perfections at an ordinary level before becoming a Holy person. There is one perfection specially dealing with moral virtue, the others link into this and support its development.

1. Dana. Perfection of generosity (dana) giving away wealth and all that is precious to one’s own life for the benefit of others. Linked to ethics in development of selflessness and concern for welfare of others.

2. Sila. Perfection of moral virtue (sila) until conduct is habitually pure. This involves following the ten good paths of action. Physical abstention from stealing and sexual misconduct. Verbal abstention from lying, slander, insulting and frivolous speech. Mental Freedom from greed, hatred and ignorance. In perfecting these, the bodhisattva practices their opposites i.e. cherishing life and saving life etc. The bodhisattva also commends this morality to others and becomes their teacher, guide and protector.

3. Patient endurance. Perfection of patience (kanti) aided by meditation on loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna) and fortitude. This provides the emotional basis for good intention required for ethical action.

4. Vigour/energy (Virya). Mindful awareness is accomplished. Links to ethics in the clarity of understanding of the cause and result of actions.

5. Concentration/meditation (Dhyana)Perfection of meditation (jhana) in which the four holy truths are accepted and the ability to move between conventional and ultimate truth is accomplished.

6. Wisdom (Prajna) Perfection of wisdom. Full insight into conditioned arising, non-self and emptiness.

Some versions of Mahayana claim that wisdom develops into further paramitas, with upaya as the 7^th and the highest possible for a human being, the higher ones being attainable only by higher beings.

7. Skilful means (Upaya)
8. Vow (Pranidhana)
9. Spiritual power (Bala)
10. Knowledge/Perfection of power (Jhana)

Amitabha’s vow

Amitabha is a Buddha who made a vow that those who chant his name with faith will be reborn in the pure land where they will have a chance for a greater rebirth.

Bodhisattva and Arhat as essential features and their relative legitimacy

Bhikkhu Bodhi: the two ideals are equally legitimate and essential

Bhikkhu Bodhi (Theravada monk) represents a popular view in Buddhism – that the Bodhisattva and Arhant ideals are both essential and equally valid. Neither is superior, they are just different paths with different roles.

Historically, the Buddha was the first person to become an Arhat, yet it seems that gave him a ‘unique function’ ‘above’ the other Arhats. This requires an explanation.

The Mahayana texts explained this by taking a ‘cosmic-metaphysical perspective’. The unique function of the Buddha was the culmination of the Bodhisattva path – a long career of past lives in which he sacrificed himself many times for the good of others.

Theravada texts have a ‘historical-realistic perspective’ so are ‘likely to be closer to the Buddha’s own verbal teachings’. For Theravada Buddhists, the explanation of the Buddha’s difference to his Arhat disciples is explained in the Nikayas, which described him having uniquely effective qualities as a guide and teacher.

Bodhi argues that the Buddha must have gained those qualities (paramitas) in past lives, which validates the Bodhisattva ideal. However the Buddha’s disciples who gained Nirvana shows that the Arhat ideal is also valid.

Bodhi concludes: “true Buddhism needs all three: Buddha, arahants, and bodhisattvas.”

“Buddhas to discover and teach the path to liberation.”
“arahants to follow the path and confirm that the Dharma does indeed lead to liberation”
“bodhisattvas to make the resolve to perfect those qualities that will enable them at some point in the future, near or distant, to become Buddhas themselves and once again turn the unsurpassed Wheel of the Dharma.”

Bodhi disagrees with those on each side which completely reject the ideal of the other side:

‘Nikaya purists’: Theravadins who reject the Bodhisattva path because they only accept the earliest texts which exclusively mention the Arhat path. They view later texts as deviation and distortion.

Bodhi claims that the problem for ‘Nikaya purism’ is the figure of the Buddha himself, because he did not attain arhatship ‘as the disciple of a Buddha but as a Buddha.’ The Nikayas themselves maintain that the Buddha was ‘the best’ of all beings (AN 4:34/A II 34). Since the Buddha was not exactly the same as the other Arhats, there must have been something different about him, which his being on the bodhisattva path in previous lives would explain.

‘Mahayana elitism’: the view that that Bodhisattva ideal is a more advanced, developed or ultimate type of Buddhism.

Bodhi argues that ‘Mahayana elitism’ neglects the fact that ‘in his historical manifestation … the Buddha did not teach the bodhisattva path’, which appears only in documents ‘at least a century’ after the Buddha’s death. The Buddha taught the arhat path.

However, Mahayana Buddhists who regard the Bodhisattva path as a more developed and advanced type of Buddhism could respond by using the concept of upaya (skillful means). This argument claims that the Theravada teachings were not the full and final truth but just what people at the time were ready to understand, which the Buddha taught because of his skillful means – his ability to tell people what they were ready to hear to encourage them along the path to enlightenment. This is illustrated by the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra. The argument is that although the Theravada teachings were taught with no reference to them being a Hinayana ‘lesser vehicle’, nonetheless it was that all along. So the Buddha not teaching the Bodhisattva path is not a valid argument against considering it a superior, more essential and more advanced form of Buddhism.

Bhikku Bodhi argues that Buddhists should avoid ‘denigrating’ the original teachings of the Buddha as mere upaya, i.e. as made irrelevant by later teachings. Instead we should respect the authenticity of the early texts while recognizing the potential for Buddhism to undergo ‘genuine historical transformations that bring to manifestation hidden potentials of the ancient teaching’.

However, upaya only ‘denigrates’ the original teachings for Bodhi because he doesn’t accept that those texts are merely skillful means. In that case, however, he doesn’t really have a logical argument that they are ‘neglecting’ something about the earliest texts. The way those who Bodhi calls ‘Mahayana elitists’ see it is that the early texts are inferior teachings according to the Buddha himself, as revealed by his later teachings that were explained to be the ‘greater vehicle’ compared to the early texts which were the lesser vehicle. It’s accepting the Buddha’s teachings, not denegrating them, to see early texts as inferior if his later teachings say they are inferior. The problem here is about which texts to believe. Bodhi’s attempt to make them compatible is arguably overly optimistic.

Whether the Arhat path is selfish and less compassionate

Ahat path less superior or not essential because: Arhat is only focused on its own spiritual development. This makes it selfish. Arhats and Theravadin Buddhists are selfishly concerned with their own salvation as opposed to the benefit of others. This suggests they are too fearful of birth and death and thus stuck in craving for life, and that they lack enough compassion to help others.

Essential because: Bhikkhu Bodhi (Theravada monk) responds that the arhats the Buddha taught didn’t just selfishly take the benefits of the path while doing nothing for others, actually they became great teachers themselves, guiding others towards liberation. He also pointed out that thousands of monks and nuns dedicated their lives to orally preserving the Dharma and Vinaya, so that it could benefit others. This could hardly be called selfishness.

Furthermore, essential because: Additionally, the stream entry stage of the arhat path this good conduct, mental development and wisdom allow an arhat to overcome the belief in the existence of a permanent self or soul. To truly become an Arhat, you have to lose your sense of self. Therefore, selfishness would have to be overcome and it is impossible for an Arhat to be selfish.

Nonetheless, even thought Bodhi is right that Arhat path involves helping others – it is still only about ultimately saving yourself. So even if it’s not selfish, it’s still relatively less compassionate than than the Bodhisattva path.

Arhat path as essential

Arhat path essential because: Theravada – Arhat is the ultimate spiritual status – after stream enterer, once-returner, never returner. The Arhat path involves the perfecting of the central teachings of Buddhism. To achieve Nibbana one must perfect the three ways of practice; good conduct, mental development and wisdom (8 fold path).

However, not essential because: For Lay Buddhists, arhatship is therefore not essential because it has very little to do with their lives. The five precepts, which are for lay buddhists, would be far more essential to them. Arhatship is only the goal of a few monastics.

Nonetheless, ultimately essential because: The Buddha was an Arhat as were his disciples. It involves huge effort over many lifetimes. Even lay Buddhists who feel like the Arhat goal is extremely far away should still be aiming for good karma in their life so that one day they might eventually become enlightened. After all, the Buddha himself was once in their position too.

Not essential because: Arhat is only focused on its own spiritual development. This makes it selfish. Arhats and Theravadin Buddhists are selfishly concerned with their own salvation as opposed to the benefit of others. This suggests they are too fearful of birth and death and thus stuck in craving for life, and that they lack enough compassion to help others.

Bodhisattva path as essential

Essential because: The Bodhisattva path is open to all – everyone has Buddha nature in them – everyone can achieve enlightenment – thus essential feature. The concept of Buddha nature is developed from the Buddha’s teachings on dependent origination and the link beteween wisdom and compassion.

However, not essential because: Every Mahayana Buddhist is on the path, However, most lay Mahanada Buddhists arguably have a superficial and unserious level of devotion to it. They don’t have the level of devotion that monks have, for example. So on average the buddha nature inside ordinary people putting them on the Bodhisattva path is not essential. It is irrelevant to the life of most lay Mahayana Buddhists.

Essential because: Bodhisattva path involves compassion due to helping others. Therefore enables good Karma and rebirth of everyone.

However, not essential because: Bodhisattva path is too ambitious and could reflect arrogance rather than compassion. It is much safer to try and encourage your own spiritual development and succeed than try to take on all the suffering in the world and fail.