In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ix Acknowledgments Iwould like to express my gratitude to professors Richard P. Hayes and Katherine K. Young of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University. I am indebted to Dr. Dermot Killingley of the University of Newcastle in England for suggestions and for sending me photocopied materials on Rammohun Roy. Dr. J.E. Llewellyn of Southwest Missouri State University sent me Hindi and English materials related to Dayananda Sarasvati. Both these scholars were also kind enough to answer my e-mail queries. The reader will quickly become aware of how indebted this work of synthesis, comparison, and analysis is to the work of true specialist scholars, in particular the biographical studies by Dermot Killingley and J.T.F. Jordens. I would also like to acknowledge conversations with Richard Davis, Brian Hatcher, and Jack Llewellyn; in Montreal with Dr. Arvind Sharma, in Kolkata with professors Dilip Biswas and Rajat Kanta Ray, and in Delhi with Swami Agnivesh. I hasten to add and emphasize the usual, but necessary, caution that none of those named above are at all responsible for the viewpoints (or shortcomings) in the book itself. Thanks are also due to Theodore de Bruyn of the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion and to Stephen Wilson, director of the College of the Humanities at Carleton University. I am grateful to my sister Wendy Quarry for keeping me at it, to Laurence Nixon for insightful comments, and to Ariane, who has been of invaluable assistance. A Note on Orthography My transliteration of Sanskrit terms follows standard international usage. For the sake of simplicity, I have omitted diacritical marks from the names of the two reformers: hence, Rammohun Roy and Dayananda Sarasvati for Ràmamohana Ràya and Dayànanda Sarasvatã. Similarly, Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj are used rather than Brahmo Samàj and ârya Samàj. I refer to Dayananda’s major Hindi work as Satyarth Prakash rather than Satyàrth Prakà÷ or the Sanskrit Satyàrtha Prakà÷aþ. I use the construction “brahmin” rather than “bràhman” for a bràhmaõa or member of the priestly class. This avoids confusion with “Brahman” as the term for the ultimate reality. I have supplied diacriticals for the names of early authors and ancient place names but not for modern individuals or locations. In quoting other authors, I do not alter their spelling or the presence or absence of diacriticals. ...

Share