Unfortunately, even if one isn't intellectually lazy, that doesn't mean he'll be naturally disposed towards language. True, reading in the original language is ideal, but it's simply not an option for most people.
Hence the use of commentaries and secondary literature to help with understanding without the use of the original languages. (Having a teacher on top of all this would really help.) Would you say that that would be acceptable?
Do you think though that a commentary, or possibly some academic text book could explain what the original languages are trying to convey?
I agree that some people may be indisposed naturally to acquiring other languages. But IMO, that means that they must simply be willing to accept that their knowledge of religious texts written in languages not their own are going to be limited.
There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing shameful in that. It only becomes problematic if such a person then decides to present themselves as being expert or possessing advanced knowledge of such a text.
As for commentaries, of course I am a big believer in their use. However, I also know that in many traditions-- Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, etc.-- the major commentaries are also written in the original language of the text, or related languages of similar origin. For example, in Judaism, the major commentaries are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, just as the texts are. And most of these commentaries are either not available in translation, or they are available in few translations, most of which are either incomplete or of lesser quality.
The other major issue with commentaries and similar secondary material is that one must read many of them, since each is written with certain unique agendas, and certain inherent biases in interpretation. Nothing is wrong with this, and it is only to be expected. But it also means that a single isolated commentary or guide can present a novice with an incomplete or slanted view of what the text is saying and how it has been interpreted.
This is one of the reasons why, traditionally, Jews have spent an
enormous amount of time in Tanakh and Talmud education. And, from my admittedly limited understanding, I believe that traditionally Muslims have also spent vast amounts of time immersed in Quran study.
Nonetheless, I would certainly advocate the use of as much commentary and secondary material as possible. It can only help. And, depending upon the agenda of the reader, it may prove to be entirely sufficient.
That said, thee notion that it is unrealistic to expect people to spend considerable effort and time in studying their religion is both very modern, very Western, and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, IMO, very Protestant Christian. In my experience, most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians I have encountered have at least been keenly aware that the texts they are reading are translations, and were composed in very different languages, at very different times, by very different people. But the vast majority of Protestants I have encountered tend to be much shallower in their textual thinking, and far less willing to deal with nuance and complexity.