Wonderful! I still haven’t read the whole thing, but so far I am mightily impressed. These are going to be marvellous companions to the suttas. Would you like to write an intro for the vinaya as well? Please 
?
Perhaps “auto-biographical”, so as to distinguish them from the later biographies.
In the suttas he is normally known as Mahāmoggallāna. It is only the Buddha, I think, who calls him Moggallāna.
I wonder, was he a māra or the Māra? The idea that Māra was the ruler of the paranimittavassavattī realm seems to be post-Canonical. In the suttas the nature of māra/Māra is more ambiguous. One hint, perhaps, is found in the list of eight assemblies, among which the assembly of māra/Māra is one. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as Māra’s assembly, giving the impression that there is only one Māra, presiding over his followers. Yet a comparison with the other assemblies suggests the correct rendering is “an assembly of māras”. My suggestion is that māra in the EBTs refers to a kind of being, not a cosmic kind of kingship, which would mean that Mahāmoggallāna was a māra, not the Māra, in a past life. This is a less grandiose claim, and therefore perhaps preferable.
I love it!
“MN 135 and MN 136”
I tend to consider these suttas as dealing with right effort. Sammāsaṅkappa to me deals with right aim or purpose. Once you have right view, to whatever extent, it affects your attitude to life, sammāsaṅkappa. This then leads to moral behaviour, which culminates in the morality of the mind, sammāvāyāmā. MN 19 and MN 20 are all about overcoming mental obstacles, the morality of the mind, if you like. For quite a while now I have been sceptical of the common claim that the second path factor deals with “right thought”. I admit, of course, that there is some overlap between factors 2 and 6, and that they influence each other, but at the same time there is a distinction that is often overlooked.
Both parents are also mentioned in the pericope of his going forth found in MN 26, MN 36, MN 85, and MN 100.
I am not sure if I follow you here. Why have you added “to the Teacher”, which is not in the Pali? Also, the content of the sutta is about more than just offerings to the Teacher.
“led”
“see”?
Ven. Analayo argues that MN 12 is a later development, whereas MN 36 is likely to contain an earlier version of these practices. MN 12 does actually seem “a bit” over the top.
“aspects”
“near”?
“(MN 1; AN 4.23)”
“no matter”
I would suggest “who illuminated”. The “had” can be read as the illumination no longer being available, as the path being a thing of the past.
or “follower by faith” ( saddhānusāri )
Perhaps “a self” is preferable. “The self” makes it seem as if there is such a thing, but that it is apart from the khandhas.
Perhaps: “and they reach”. “Reaches” sounds a bit awkward.
I think a good case can be made that non-returners may be reborn in any of the Brahma realms. Beings reborn in The Pure Abodes do not seem to be in a state of immersion (oh no, I’m under the influence! 
), since they are sometimes said to visit the Buddha. It seems rather obvious, however, that non-returners would often, perhaps most of the time, be reborn in a state samādhi (I’ve kicked it 
). So my understanding is that, while it may be true that the Pure Abodes are only populated with non-returners, non-returners may very well be reborn elsewhere.
More later …