What is the difference between the meditative concentration of non-Buddhists who do not uphold the precept against killing and the meditative concentration of Buddhism?

Concentration has the merit of concentration. In meditative concentration where the precept against killing is not upheld, the merit of concentration is less. But as the power of concentration deepens, the actions of body, speech, and mind become fewer and fewer, until one no longer engages in bodily, verbal, and mental actions—then even these non-Buddhist concentrations are concentrations that uphold the precepts, upholding without upholding, naturally possessing the precepts. Such precepts are purer than the five precepts and the eight precepts of the fasting day upheld by Buddhist practitioners, and even purer than the bodhisattva precepts upheld by most people.

Because they possess such deep meditative concentration that violates no precepts whatsoever, at the very moment of listening to the Buddha's teaching of the Dharma, these non-Buddhists could contemplate instantly and immediately attain the arhat of the fourth fruit, without passing through the first, second, or third fruits—can Buddhist practitioners compare with that?

Although non-Buddhist concentration cannot eradicate the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) or eradicate afflictions, it can subdue the self and subdue afflictions, remaining connected to the five-aggregates self by a slender thread, and connected to afflictions by a slender thread. Finally, when the Buddha expounded the Buddha-Dharma, the non-Buddhists deeply believed in the Buddha and truly took refuge in the Buddha, and thus quickly attained realization; the view of self and afflictions were no longer connected by a slender thread, but were thoroughly eradicated.

If the shallow concentration cultivated by Buddhist practitioners cannot subdue the self and cannot subdue afflictions, then there is still a long road ahead before afflictions can be eradicated.