To Whom It May Concern:
I was doing some unrelated research on SC and came across this.
I know this topic is cold, but you might want to look into it again because T 121 is definitely not this Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra .
The real T 121 is a completely unrelated sutra which starts waaay down at the bottom of SC’s T121 page. T 121 is translated by Dānapāla (施護) while the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra is translated by Guṇabhadra (求那跋陀羅). The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra is actually T 120 (CBETA lists it as such). It’s translated in 4 fasicles and, in fact, the first fascile (卷第一) is SC’s T120, but somehow the final three (卷第二、卷第三、卷第四) got lumped in under T 121.
@Coemgenu Yes, indeed, it is a Mahāyāna sūtra–a tathāgatagarbha sūtra, to be precise. Here is a Wikipedia page on the sūtra:
(The Wikipedia page also has two links to English translations, if anyone’s interested.)
I forgot that I had read an article on this years ago where the author was comparing this version with the Pāli Aṅgulimāla Sutta to illustrate the process of how sāvakayāna suttas were “Mahāyānized” (which is actually what I was looking for because Dānapāla does the same thing sometimes: e.g., T 52).
I didn’t have time to check all the discourses listed, and I don’t know SC policy on these issues, but I would say it still counts as a (partial) parallel, at least to the Aṅgulimāla Suttas. The second sūtra, T 121, the one I was looking, as for what it parallels, I don’t know yet. But SC has two batches of parallels listed which, at first glance, seem to correspond to T 120 and 121.
Anyway, I’m glad I found the sūtra: I read the article but never the original text. And this thing looks crazy! I’m going to give it a look.