Okay, so let me introduce you to my good friend, the “principle of least meaning”. This has been one of the handiest ideas that has informed my translations.
The basic point is this: as humans, we tend to read things into statements that are not there. And this tendency is even more acute when it comes to ancient sacred scripture. They bear a huge freight of meaning, and it is not uncommon to find the words of the text overwhelmed by the expectations placed upon them by interpreters.
So to counterbalance this, I always try to translate with the “least meaning”. This is a principle that I learned in my studies of translation theory (I can’t remember where tho!)
Try to read the text in its most plain and obvious way. Don’t read more into it than is demanded by the context. There are, it is true, cases where a text is rich and ambiguous, and in such cases it is good to try to capture that. But in most cases in the Suttas, the meaning is plain and clear.
Now, let’s look at this specific phrase. Here, dhamma is obviously “teachings” and dhara is “memory, bearing in mind”. In an oral tradition, a dhammadhara means someone who memorizes a text and carries it for others to learn. This is a crucial role for the survival of the Dhamma.
And it is in that plain and simple meaning that the word is used throughout the suttas.
In the verse you cite, the Buddha takes up that plain meaning and raises it up by ascribing a new, higher sense.
This is, of course, a common technique that he uses. As a well-known example, he takes up the “brahmin” and redefines him as one who is perfected, as an arahant. But—and this is the crucial point—no-one would mistake this for the ordinary sense of brahmin. When the suttas say that the Buddha met a brahmin in the street, it doesn’t mean that he met an arahant: it means “brahmin” in the ordinary sense.
This is a good example of the “principle of least meaning”. When translating the suttas, assume that when the text refers to a brahmin, it just means an ordinary member of the brahmin caste, unless the context requires otherwise.
The same thing would apply in the case here. Does it make sense to understand dhammadhara in the ordinary sense in which it’s used throughout the suttas? Yes it does. Is there anything that requires it be read in the higher sense? No.
Admittedly, in this case the higher sense is not impossible. It’d make sense for the text to speak of a teacher as both a memorizer of texts and as a spiritual master. And so that is definitely a possible translation, and a valid choice by a translator—so long as the basic sense is not lost. You can see in the examples above how easy it is for the plain meaning to become obscured once we start ascribing a higher sense to everything. Meaning is slippery that way.
So, my approach is not, “is it possible to read it in the more meaningful sense?”, but “is it necessary to read it in the more meaningful sense?” And since the answer in this case is “no”, then my translations stands.
For what it’s worth, my translation of that Dhammapada verse is:
You’re not one who has memorized the teaching
just because you recite a lot.
Someone who directly sees the teaching
after hearing only a little
is truly one who has memorized the teaching,
for they can never forget it.