So, do you disagree to not read him, even though that council says anathema to those who do not say anathema to origen and his writings?
Whether or not one agrees with the anathema against Origen is not the point. For most people, it might be better to avoid writings that can confuse. But there will always need to be some people who are able to read such writings, if only to explain why they are in error, if they are in error. So no, I don't agree with a blanket prohibition on reading certain things.
Do you agree that it is better to read commentary on a bible rather than the bible itself since it is safer?
No. Read Scripture. Read Scripture with the Church, of course. But read Scripture. Many Orthodox focus more on the patristic writings, liturgical texts, or even the letters and sayings of their favourite monks and all but ignore Scripture. How backwards and unpatristic.
This writing is condemned as heretical, therefore do not read it.
then you try to mimic the logic and say,
Heretics get heresy from the bible, therefore do not read it. (implying heresy originates from the bible)
I think you are not using the same logic as I am. I am saying, to be safe, only to read verified saint's writings. You say, to be safe, do not read the bible. That makes no sense and it is not using my logic, since the bible is verified to be sacred scripture, while origens writing is not required to know the faith nor is it sacred scripture.
I just wouldnt bother with them
Rather spent time reading other fathers than risk getting a heretical doctrine in your head
My comment was directed toward this.
It's not like the Fathers had two thousand years' worth of Christian writings accessible through the internet and extensive libraries enabling them to have instant recourse to legitimate and approved sources other than Scripture so that they could teach and "sound Orthodox". Their exposition of the faith is rooted in Scripture (as it should be), even if they refer to other fathers and teachers: it starts from the Scriptures, and at every level of its unfolding they refer back to the Scriptures. But the heretics of those days also did the same. They went to Scripture and found support for their ideas.
If reading something that may involve the risk of "getting a heretical doctrine in your head" is reason enough to avoid reading it (as you said above), then one can argue that the Bible shouldn't be read. That it is God's word is not the point: my point is that people read it and often risk "getting a heretical doctrine in their head" because of their misunderstanding or stubbornness. Just because it is God's word doesn't mean that every reader gets it right...many times they get it dead wrong. But that is not a reason to stay away from Scripture. And it's not a reason to stay away from Origen, or St Augustine for that matter. Read whatever you read with your eyes, ears, and mind open. Don't read it blindly because the author is a saint or something like that. Read with understanding. Accept and retain what is good, pass over for the moment what you don't understand, and if there is anything bad, forget it. But just because a council hurls an anathema at someone doesn't mean that everything they said and wrote was untouchable. A council judges and condemns Origen two centuries or so after he dies in communion with the Church and suddenly he's no good? Tell that to Ss Basil and Gregory.