There might be something else at play. When I see western scholars trying to interpret Sanskrit scriptures I see the similar mistakes as the author is making he

There might be something else at play. When I see western scholars trying to interpret Sanskrit scriptures I see the similar mistakes as the author is making here. I am from India and I have basic familiarity with Japanese and Sanskrit. Both languages rely heavily on context. Since knowledge was mostly passed from master through disciple the information is compressed into smaller sentences easy to memorize. The full meaning was always conveyed through the human interaction. English on other hand seems to have grown during industrial revolution where mass producing information and passing it to people who may no have human being to explain it around was very important. Over years English has evolved to describe all possible information even without the context. I see western scholars translating Sanskrit word "Namaste" as "Hello" but in reality it is "I bow to you" something that Indians might have well forgotten but they are surely to know the context and a elderly person will not do a "Namaste" to a child. We bow to elders not younger ones. Similarly Japanse phrase of Itadakemas might be translated merely as "I take" but the English translation does not do justice to it. As an Indian I think I total understand the sentiments behind the phrase. So I think it would be a mistake to call Japanese people retarded without fully understanding their culture.