Brahmins Integrated into society, not set apart

An exchange below. Would word slightly differently than AA: Yagna is much more implicit an ontology than the western social contract which is theory based. We underestimate western ontology which is much more legalism based with its intentionality/supremacy/"great man theory"/Nietzsche-an constructs serving to mask the underlying legalism. "Accepting each other gods" also refers to the indological construct/theory of syncretism - which is incorrect in terms of ancient Bharata. The Devas have always been considered the Rupa-s of Brahman Shri Vishnu, Mahadev, or Shakti, and are fundamentally united. SNB is to discuss Rupa in his book on ethics, but we (heathens/Hindus) have an intuitive understanding of it. It is only through the prism of splittist Aristotelian dichotomization (Western binary/dialectical/oppositional logic) that the we start to see Rupa as some type of colonial device of appropriation. The heathen sees no distinction in the Devas as manifestations of Brahman.

The heathen ontology of yagna is organic. The western ontology of theology/ideology constructs determining reality (reality is a result of the belief system/ideology/religion of some "agent") is artificial, almost parasitic.  

Also reminded of Mithra as Deva/Asura of friendship also being used for "contracts" in the ANE (ancient near east).

START:
suryasen​​ caste is a Portuguese term. brahmins were not a class, they were thoroughly integrated into society at all levels.

AA​ ​@suryasen exactly. listen to sanjiv sanyal. there was a social contract/yagya were every1 decided to accept each other's gods
END.