In The Seach for God in Ancient Egypt (2001), the egyptologist Jan Assmann proposed to measure Ancient Egyptian religion (its activities and experiences) using three "dimensions".

These represent their conceptual horizon of contact with the divine, namely :

• the cultic : the local, political residence of the deities, either as belonging to a particular place and/or as state deities functioning as symbols of the collective, political identity ;

• the cosmic : the emergence, structure & dynamics of the sphere of their action ;

• the mythic : the sacred tradition, or "what is said about the gods", their cultural memory as set down in myths, names, genealogies etc.

" ... there was no explicit and coherent explanation of Egyptian theology on the metalevel of theoretical discourse in Ancient Egypt any more than there were theoretical explanations in other areas, such as grammar, rhetoric or historiography. As is well known, the development of theoretical discourse, at least in the Mediterranean world, was an accomplishment of Greek culture." - Assman, 2001, p.9.

Assmann speculates there are multiple dimensions, some of which "are realized in dominant form in any given historical religion". The ones mentioned above were treated in a dominant fashion in Ancient Egyptian religion. In Assmann's reading, the Amarna religion assisted in the breakthrough of a fourth dimension in the era following it, called by Breasted "the age of personal piety" (1912). By closing the temples and banishing the deities of the old religion, Akhenaten had forced the worshippers to resort to internal gods & goddesses "placed in the heart" (mind).

Because, according to Assmann, the mystic "absolutizes the inner presence of the divine and takes satisfaction in it", he is reluctant to name this fourth dimension of "personal piety" truly "mystical". However, this holds only true if this loose definition of mysticism is accepted.

Mysticism is the direct experience of the Divine. On the basis of the provisional comparative form of the phenomenology of Hinduism (Classical Yoga), Judaism (Qabalah), Christianity (the Jesus-people, Orthodoxy) and Islam (Sufism of Al Junayd and Ibn'Arabi), arrived at by means of a comprehensive hermeneutical and participant observational approach, the more mature and unfolding architecture (form) of this radical experience is conceived as implying a bi-polar one-fold. The universal & fundamental structure of this experience, always reflects both the inner as well as the outer aspect of the Divine (cf. Divine bi-polarity). 

Negative theology puts the mysticism of un-saying in perspective, the fact the essence of the Divine is unknown, ineffable, incomprehensible and absolutely absolute. Positive theology affirms the Presence of the Divine in the created order. Like Bergson, I would like to suggest the mystics are the true founders of the religions. Also : mystical experience is a universal human factor able to manifest in formidable everyday experiences (orgasm, strong emotions, Aha, serendipity, cognitive paradox, synchronicity, inventivity, true love, creativity through service). See on these differences : Introduction to a Colorful Recital.

The mature mystic finds the Divine "in the heart" (inner, the seer) but he or she also unveils everything what can be experienced (outer, the seen) as the Self-manifestation of the Divine. This may explain their strength facing evil and their enthusiast theodicy. 

However, to consider the mystic as exclusively focused on the inner side of the equation is limiting mysticism by a theistic approach of the Divine, stressing the absent, transcendent and remote characteristics. All major traditions interested in the experience of the mystics themselves (exploring mysticism in an experiential way) are confronted with the "agonizing polarization" between manifest and hidden. All major mystic traditions have identified these two poles and were aware of the tension. It is typical for the mystics that although they identify the two seas (salty & sweet) they never eclipse the fact the water of life is one living water of Divine Presence (as Marguerite Porete so admirably synthesized in the character of "Loinprés", Farnear - a theme explicit in Amarna theology & later in Theban theology). The bi-polarity is a phenomenon taking place within a fundamental, implicit, unbreakable, eternal but unfolding unity (cf. "pan-en-theos" : all-in-God).

As Staal demonstrated, mysticism implies a structure of direct experience (between the mystic and the Divine, both inner as outer) and a superstructure which is a verbal thematization of the experience (as a solitary and/or as a group) which may lead to textualization and canonization. To limit the structure of mystical experience to being satisfied with a fusion with the inner, hidden & remote aspect of the Divine, is considered by mystics (in the East, Middle East and West) as a limitation and an incomplete experience of the Divine (cf. Ibn'Arabi on the paradoxical, wonderous perplexity of the "station of no station", and Sufi criticism on stressing Divine remoteness). It may even lead to insanity and heresy. The mature mystic has inner trance and outer sobriety (cf. Al-Junayd). Trance without sobriety is insanity. Sobriety without trance is utter darkness. Outer sobriety is also regulated by the idea of moral harmony (cf. Maat), i.e. symmetrical communication with other human beings aiming at establishing, sustaining & differentiating the common good (of nature, family, society, the planet, etc.).

In the Old Kingdom (and also thereafter), Pharoah was a paradoxical figure, for he was a "god on Earth" while the other gods & goddesses abided in the other world, present in their temples and images in a symbolical and subtle fashion only (they sent their doubles and souls while their spirits remained in the sky). Because religious activity happened between the deities (the temples do not mediate but were loci of the indwelling of the divine), the figure of Pharaoh, both "Great House" and divine king, was extraordinary. Hence, in the Old Kingdom, the overt manifestation of the mystical approach of the divine was an exclusive royal prerogative, or as the Pyramid Texts claim :

"Men hide, the gods fly away."
Pyramid Texts, utterance 302 (§ 459). 

Does this royal prerogative of the mystical imply the common Egyptian had no direct religious experience ? Could he or she never experienced the "radical other" in their private domain, in the temple of their nome and in the regular festive processions outside the sacred precinct ? Officially, only Pharaoh had a direct experience of the divine (being a god himself) and thus he alone rose vertically to the stars, while all other Egyptians were barred from a direct contact with the divine, except within the confines of their own inner subjectivity.

"Although in all periods relatively few people were directly involved in the cult, the temples and the cult performed in them would have existed in a partial vacuum if they had corresponded with little in the lives of the other people. Apart from this general point, several literary texts become more meaningful if it is assumed that contact with the deity, or experience of the deity, was considered possible." - Baines, J. : "Society, Morality and Religious Practice", in Shafer, 1991, p.173.

In the private tombs of Sheshi (VIth Dynasty - Saqqara) & Harkhuf (VIth Dynasty - Assuan), a stylized catalog of virtues occurs. These virtues are not told in the prose of the narrative autobiography but were recited in an orational style. They suggest great intellectual and literary capabilities. Together with the Maxims of Ptahhotep, (Vth Dynasty under Izezi or Djedkare) they evidence interior reflection, wisdom and a search for true peace. Why would these individuals not have attained mystical states of consciousness ? Moreover, Ptahhotep is eager to relate that wisdom (with which no one is born) and the good (like wealth & peace) come by virtue of the deities. Apparently, they are not restricted to Pharaoh.

(139)     If You are a weakling, serve a man of quality, worthy of trust,
(140)     (so) that all your conduct may be well with god.
(141)     Do not recall if once he was of humble condition,
(142)     do not let your heart become big toward him,
(143)     for knowing his former state.
(144)     Respect him for what has accrued to him,
(145)     for surely goods do not come by themselves.
(146)     They are their laws for him whom they love.
(147)     His gain, he gathered it himself,
(148)     (but) it is god who makes him worthy,
(149)     and protects him while he sleeps.

Ptahhotep : Maxims of Ptahhotep, maxim 10, D175 - "they" and "theirs" refer to the deities

Hence, regarding the horizon of contact with the divine, devotion or piety, at least four elements seem valid :

• cultic : the actual religious actions, expressions and manifestations of religiosity (in the temples of the nomes, in private homes and in state cults), intimately connected with the economical, social & political conditions at hand ;

• nomic : what is said & written down about the divine, for example in the "House of Life" of the various temples ;

• cosmic/social : the field of action of the divine ;

• mystic/personal : the direct experience of the divine in personal piety.