 Even disjunctivized, the Schellenbergian view adopted here is clearly an inheritance from Abrahamic perfect being  theology,[9]  so two cautions about scope. First, when we look outward and find that some non-Abrahamic traditions have ultimacy in the sense here—as we will in  Section 2  for Hinduism and Daoism—we should acknowledge that this result comes framed from the outside. Second, not all non-Abrahamic traditions will have ultimates in the sense just adopted. For instance, to offer just one example, Barbara Mann suggests that in non-colonized interpretations of Native American spiritualities there is nothing that is ultimate in Schellenberg’s sense (2010:  33–36).[10]  So ultimacy as just defined may be widespread in the world’s religions and spiritualities, but it is not universal.