I like extensive explanations.
Apparently like and dislike is a harmful dualism. (see your interpretation of Seng T'san)
intrinsic gnosis is unborn and undying - there is not the slightest difference between a person who kills millions of sentient beings and one who practices the ten perfections
naked wakefulness (gnosis is problematic throughout) is not dependent on bhavana, karma, or samsara
nature of reality is unstructured - there is not the slightest difference between a person who is always meditating upon emptiness and one who has never even momentarily entertained the idea of emptiness.
naked wakefulness is not dependent on maturation or development
gnosis is unconditioned - as to the completion of the accumulations of virtue and awareness there is not the slightest difference between a religious person who has performed countless conditional virtues and a psychopathic killer.
naked wakefulness is not dependent on accumulation
nature of gnostic awareness is unmoving - as to the vision of the real nature of things there is no difference between a person who exhibits all the signs of understanding and one who has never cared to listen or study the teaching or to think about it.
naked wakefulness is not dependent on appearances
nature of being is unborn and deathless - as to accessing realization there is not the slightest difference between a person experiencing the torment of hell and one experiencing the bliss of buddha.
naked wakefulness is not dependent on liking or disliking ongoing experiences
immutability of gnosis - as to intuiting the natural condition there is not the slightest difference between a person who has restrained discriminatory mental functions and one who has a strong fixated ego.
naked wakefulness does not depend on concentration or other patterns of thought
intrinsicality of pure being - as to potential for fruition there is not the slightest difference between a person who performs all kinds of external offerings, uttering praise and prayers, and one who lives free of all religious activity.
naked wakefulness does not depend on the methods of kriya, carya, or yoga tantras
confidence in effortless realization, conviction in appearance as inseparable from the three kayas, and knowledge that he or she is awake.
words above are designed to reassure the student-practitioner of the path from which these quotes have been excerpted (so as to lose their appropriate context) that what has been presented as 'buddha-nature' in other traditions intrinsically holds every capacity and possible modification from its base (because it is not dependent on time) and thus that methods which incorporate the conclusions philosophically (and reasonably) derived from this insight concerning intrinsically perfect and complete buddhahood are legitimate, and will be effective
The difference between what you seem to be stating and what this quote asserts is that you make no provision for the effects of lack of realization, lack of integration, and lack of utilization of this naked wakefulness in the case of any given practitioner. This may in part stem from the problem in translation of using "gnosis" as a signifier, which I believe pertains more particularly in its own tradition to praxis, whereas these statements do not. These are depictions of view, not instructions about some method. There is a difference between what you are stating on the basis of these quotes, and what is taught by qualified teachers about these quotes, because you have clearly never received qualified teaching from a qualified teacher about their meaning within a legitimate lineage of (in this case) Dzogchen instruction and practice.