I agree with the idea that once it gets skewed a lot is lost. But, if we assume all of the initial translations are skewed, how do we know that the references we are seeing in his translation are actually his? Perhaps the individuals translating the work put these elements in because they had no other reference to understand what he was saying. The only way to truly know would be to go back to the original writings and translate them ourselves. Unless, we possess the requisite skills necessary to do just that, we have to take on faith the assumptions that the original translators made. And as such, we are prone to see the translation we feel best reflects our own ideas, as the better of the translations available. I'm not a Japanese scholar, and interpreting someone's handwriting in Japanese is even more precarious then print.
Good luck with your scholarly endeavors........