This "Dai-Gohonzon" is kept at Fujisan Honmonji, another Nikko Temple that claim they have the "Super Gohonzon" but no record exists in Nikko's own handwriting or Nichiren's.  This photograph of the "dai-gohonzon" was first published in 1911 in a book called "Nichiren Shonin" by Kumatat Ijo. He visited Taisekiji to prepare for his writing of a biography of Nichiren . Taisekiji allowed him  to take a picture of the Ita Honzon ("dai gohonzon"). The book was very popular, but in the second printing the picture of the Ita Honzon was omitted.

Concerning the so-called 'Ita Mandara'
(Board Mandala, called the 'dai-gohonzon' by FujisanHonmonji)

WHO IS YASHIRO KUNISHIGE?
The inscription on the Ita Mandara is that is is bestowed upon "Yashiro Kunishige, of the Hokke Shu..." or Hokke "lecture assembly" (koshu), to translate it literally.

These "Hokke koshu's" or "Hokke shu's" appeared in the Muromachi period (Nichi-u's time) and it is a term that was not used in Nichiren's lifetime (late Kamakura, when it was not safe for Nichiren beleivers to congregate). These fraternities used wooden mandalas as objects of worhip.....actually the first mention of the Ita Mandara from outside Taisekiji is found in the "Kecho Sho" , dated 1662.

There were eight Nikko-"ha" (school) temples and they were all opposed to Taisekiji. This ita mandara may have been conected to another Nikko temple Hokke shu, therefore Minobusan may have claimed it on the grounds that Taisekiji was not the rightful recipient after the death of this Yashiro Kunishige

However, all this dates from AFTER 1488, two hundred years after Nichiren's death.. Nothing exists before that. Certainly, there is no record of Minobu grumbling about the "theft" of a Ita mandara in Nikko's time.....it would have been a very valuable treasure indeed, given the astronomical cost of camphor wood at the time. We would have heard about such a serious usurpation. No mention exists because no one knew about the Ita mandara until 1488.

Concerning "Yashiro Kunishige", the mystery recipient of the Ita Mandara....the greatest Taisekiji scholar, Hori Nikkyo, (a retired High Priest, no less) writes: "I do not know the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige" (Source: {"Fuji Shugaku Yoshu") In other words, the most learned Nichiren Shoshu scholar/priest of this century, with access to all the resources of Taisekiji, could not come up with an historical identity for this person. Taisekiji has said that this was a fictitious person, used to exemplify "all mankind". This was not typical of Nichiren. Many of his authentic gohonzons do NOT have an inscription atr all; they are not all"personal" gohonzons, as Taisekiji claims. Why would Nichiren invent a fictitious person to inscribe a gohonzon to? "For all mankind" would have sufficed.

Concerning the so-called 'Ita Mandara'
(Board Mandala, called the 'dai-gohonzon' by Taisekiji)
1) Mandalas written on boards of this type are typical of the Hokke fraternities and Hokke Halls of the Muromachi Period (post 1333), after Nichiren's death.

2) Nikko never mentions this so called Supreme Mandala but clearly indicates in the authentic Hara letter (in his own handwriting) that mandalas are to be used until the proper statue of the Eternal Shakyamuni with the attendant four honge (original) bodhisattvas around him is finally erected. Shigyo Kaishu's study ofthe documents of the Nikko faction shows that this attitude was common for the next generation but even then there was no reference to the so called 'Ita Mandara'. (Shigyo was one of the most brilliant scholars of Nichiren and an expert on Nikko also). The earliest text giving details of the 'Ita Mandara' is the 'Kechu Sho' which dates from 1662! And even the reference there hasapparently been tampered with.

3) The so-called 'Ita MÀandara' is inscribed in camphor wood, which would not have been readily available in the climate of Minobusan. (Doesn't grow in the mountains, only on southern climate). Taisekiji says that it was carved on Mt. Shichimenzan, near Minobusan, by Nippo, a well known sculptor. Nichiren did not even visit Shichimenzan, but stayed exclusively on Minobusan (Lord Hakiri'sproperty. Shichimenzan was another's private property). Nippo never worked onMinobusan. He only carved a posthumous statue of Nichiren.

4) Concerning 'Yashiro Kunishige' (the name of the recipient on the Ita Mandara), the best evidence about him is from noted Nichiren Shoshu priest, Hori Nikkyo (who edited the 1952 Gosho Zenshu). Hori Nikkyo writes,' I do notknow the basis for the matter of Yashiro Kunishige' (Source: 'Fuji Shugaku Yoshu'). In other words, the most learned Taisekiji priest of this century, with access to all the resources of Taisekiji, could not come up with any historical source for this person.

5) Insofar as we can examine the 'Ita Mandara' from photographs, the handwriting is VERY peculiar. Nichiren's handwriting (both from his 'kao' (flower stamp) and from his authentic mandalas) has been carefully studied and catalogued by date, size of daimoku, secret diacritical marks, etc. The experts inthis area are Suzuki Ichijo and Yamanaka Kihachi. The handwriting of the 'ItaMandara' is from the third year of Koan (1280), not the second year of Koan, which is the formal date on the mandara (1279). It is quite probable that theforgery was taken from a genuine mandara now at Myokaiji in Numatsu, near Fuji (Yamanaka, V.1, p.302, No.36). The size of the daimoku is consistent with the twelve gohonzons that were made by Nichiren in 1280. The twelve that he made in 1279 are only 5/8th the size of the ones of 1280. Also, the 'secret' marks denote April of 1280. Nichiren's gohonzons are all dated in this 'secretcode' of Nichiren's, perhaps because Nichiren wanted to guard against forgery.

6) It is unlikely that Nichiren would have allowed such an obscure (and actually unknown, according to Hori Nikkyo!), individual as this mysterious Yashiro to be the sponsor of the Kaidan mandala. By analogy with the past, it would have been a ruler of the country. IT certainly was not one of the Atsuhara martyrs, for common farmers did not have last names in those days.

7) The testimony of Nikko not only fails to give any backing to this so-called 'Ita Mandara', but on several GENUINE mandalas Nikko writes his supreme accolade e.g. The Mandala now at Myokakuji in Kyoto has this comment appended in NIKKO'S OWN HAND: 'It is to be the esteemed treasure of Hommonji'. The Mandala now at Honnoji in Kyoto has this comment appended IN NIKKO'S OWN HAND: 'It is the esteemed treasure of Daihommonji (the great Hommonji). The Mandala now at the Hokkeji in Takase in KagawaPrefecture has this comment appended IN NIKKO'S OWN HAND: 'Hanging itup in the Hommonji one should make it the esteemed jewel for the latter age:
Nikko says (it) and bestows it on Ueno Kemmyo Shin Goro of Fuji'. The Mandara now at Hommanji in Kyoto has this comment appended IN NIKKO'SOWN HAND: 'It is to be the esteemed treasure of Hommonji.' These are not the original temples of these mandalas, so no one is claiming that possession of the mandalas gives them any status, but it proves that there was more than one Hommonji, according to Nikko, and no single mandala was designated as the only mandala. (Note that the temple of the Kaidan is named Hommonji, in the 'transfer documents'. Taisekiji (Great Stone Temple) is obviously not named 'Hommonji'.) Miyazaki Eishu has shown that quite a few temples were named 'Hommonji' but if we assume that Nikko had any particular temple in mind, it was probably Kitayama Hommonji (see below).

8) The so-called 'Ita Mandara' was also attacked by Nichi-jo, head priest of Kitayama Hommonji, a contemporary of Nichi-u, the 9th head priest of Taisekiji, who tried to pass this Ita Mandara off to the world in an effort to restore the failing fortunes of his temple. Nichi-jo reports that, for his sin, Nichi-u became aleper, for 'having gone against the fundamental intention of the founder of thetemple (Nikko) and carving the Ita mandara which had never been seen or heard of; he also produced forged books adorned with his own doctrines' (from the Taisekiji Kyowaku Kempon Sho' or the 'Insane Revelation of the Original Buddha at Taisekiji'). Note the Kitayama Hommonji where Nikko spent his last 36 years and where his grave is located, facing Minobusan and away fromTaisekiji, is probably the best candidate for the Hommonji temple that Nikko had in mind, since no one doubts it's title of Hommonji, in contrast to Taisekiji, whose claim to this title is dubious (since it's name isn't Hommonji at all).

9) The letter 'Shonin Gonan Ji' or 'On the Persecutions (or Difficulties) of the Saints' (translated by the Gakkai as 'On the Buddha's Behavior'....no mention of 'buddha' in the title as Nichiren wrote it), it is an autograph letter addressed toNichiren's followers in general through Shijo Kingo. It's theme is encouragement of the faithful in the wake of the Atsuwara persecution. Despite the reference to the attainment for the 'fundamental intention for coming forth in this world' ('Shusse no honkai') this is phrase directly from the Lotus Sutra, and does not have any connection with the so-called 'Ita Mandara', which is not mentioned in this letter at all. Komatsu Kuniaki, in the 'Nichiren Shonin ibunjiten' (Rekishi hen), p.553) concludes that there is no connection with the so-called 'Ita Mandara', looking at the original text. Taisekiji has used the closedate of this letter (1279) to back it's claims for the date of the Ita Mandara.

10) The real background of the 'Ita Mandara' is probably in the reference to the 'Hokke Koshu' or Hokke confraternity (lit. A 'lecture assembly') (Hokke (Ko)shu is written on the Ita Mandara, after the name of Yashiro Kunishige), one of the many confraternities which used such mandalas on wood as permanent objects of worship. As noted above, these mandalas were common in the Muromachi period and the term 'Hokke shu' in the inscription on the ItaMandara also points to the period several decades at least after Nichiren's death,by which time such groups of Nichiren followers were widespread. This tends to show that this mandala was, as stated above, a copy from an authentic mandala. The Kaidan mentioned in it was probably only the place of practice or 'dojo' of this confraternity. This imitation, in itself, was not illegitimate but when Nichi-u tried to pass it off as the only genuine or supreme mandala, then he wasdestroying history and doctrine and creating a pseudo-Nichiren Buddhism.

11) Contemporary records of Nichiren's funeral ('Gosenge kiroku') in Nikko's own hand (now at the Nishiyama Hommonji) show that Nikko was given no special consideration above and apart from the other five disciples, either in thelist of the Six Senior Monks or in the funeral cortege. If, as Taisekiji and someother Nikko offshoot sects claim, Nikko has been given a special and exclusive succession from Nichiren on the latter's deathbed, it is almost unthinkable that he would not have been the chief celebrant at the funeral. Likewise the distribution of belongings shows Nikko receiving no special religious goods, while Nichiro and Nissho are given the Chu-Hokkekyo (Nichiren's own annotated copy of theLotus Sutra) and Nichiren's own statue of Shakyamuni that he received from Lord Ito at Izu, for curing the lord of his madness. By contrast, the various 'transfer documents' of Taisekiji can be ascertained from copies decades or hundreds of years later, in an age when such forgeries were rife.