What we know of the period 800 to 600 B.C. is mostly due to the Brahmans, and many Indianists have accepted their view, that they were then socially the highest class and the repository of religion and culture.  But it is clear from Buddhist writings (which, however, are somewhat later) that this pre-eminence was not unchallenged[202], and many admissions in the Brahmanas and Upanishads indicate that some centuries before the Buddha the Kshatriyas held socially the first rank and shared intellectual honours with the Brahmans.  Janaka, king of Videha[203], and Yajnavalkya, the Brahman, meet on terms of mutual respect and other Kshatriyas, such as Ajatasatru of Kasi and Pravahana Jaivali are represented as instructing Brahmans, and the latter in doing so says “this knowledge did not go to any Brahman before but belonged to the Kshatriyas alone[204].”  But as a profession theology, both practical and speculative, was left to the Brahmans.

The proper relation between the nobles and Brahmans finds expression in the office of Purohita[205] or domestic chaplain, which is as old as the Vedas and has lasted to the present day.  In early times he was not merely a spiritual guide but also a councillor expected to advise the king as to his enterprises and secure their success by appropriate rites.  By king we should understand a tribal chief, entrusted with considerable powers in the not infrequent times of war, but in peace obliged to consult the clan, or at least the aristocratic part of it, on all matters of importance.  A Purohita might attain a very high position, like Devabhaga, priest of both the Kurus and Srinjayas[206].  The Brahmans did not attempt to become kings, but the sacred books insist that though a Brahman can do without a king, yet a king cannot do without a Brahman.  The two castes are compared to the deities Mitra and Varuna, typifying intelligence and will.  When they are united deeds can be done[207].  But “the Gods do not eat the food of a king who is without a Purohita.”  Other castes can offer sacrifices only by the mediation of Brahmans, and it does not appear that kings disputed this, though they claimed the right to think for themselves and may have denied the utility of sacrifice[208].  Apart from kings the duties and claims of the Brahman extend to the people at large.  He has four virtues, “birth, deportment, fame and the perfecting of the people,” and in return the people owe him respect, liberality, security against oppression and against capital punishment.

Towns in this period must have been few and those few essentially forts, not collections of palaces and temples.  We hear of Kasi (Benares) but the name may signify a district.  People are said to go to the Kurus or Pancalas, not to Mithila or any other city.  It was in village life—­which is still the life of the greater part of India—­that Brahmanism grew up.  Probably then as now Brahman families occupied separate villages, or at least quarters,