Lareevar Saroop: Some Thoughts

[nWo]

Taken from Tapoban.Org

One amazing post

VahegurooJeeKaKhalsa,VahegurooJeeKeeFateh!

Sadh Sangat Jeeo,

At a time when Sikhs worldwide are offended by a man who has attempted to project himself as Dasmesh Pita Jee, i thought it worth sharing with the Sangat my personal thoughts regarding a case of Maha Beadbee which has been carried out by 'Sikhs' themselves and never gets the attention it deserves. Arguably, is a much more severe, faithless and distasteful act than that recently carried out by 'the pakhandee in pink'.

If someone truly thinks about it, they will come to understand that the act of pad-ched regarding Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop, which is about the human-inspired breaking-up and reconstruction of Maharaaj Jee's Akalee Banee, is a completely faithless act which intends to make assumptions regarding Siree Guroo Sahib Jee's unfathomable and infinite intentions. A Gursikh accepts that Maharaaj Jee is unfathomable and so would never tamper with His Saroop.

We all agree that it was the Lareevaar Saroop, not the 'modified' pad-ched Saroop, which was blessed and placed in the care of the Khalsa, by none other than Dasmesh Pita Jee, who passed the Gurgaddi to This Bir in 1708. Please note that there are no historic occurrences of pad-ched ever being applied to Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop pre-20th Century. What to talk of Maharaaj’s Pavittar Saroop, there were even no such things as pad-ched Gutkaa Sahibs pre-20th century, such was the level of respect accorded to Maharaaj Jee’s Roop by Gursikhs. Therefore, Sikh Ithiaas (history) attests to the fact that pad-ched Saroop is a ‘modern innovation’ and has never been Guroo-ordained.

According to what I have learnt so far about the issue, it seems that it was Teja ‘Singh’ Bhasauria (the ex-Sajjan of Bhai Sahib Bhai Randheer Singh Jee, who was ex-communicated for removing Bhagat Banee) who has the 'distinction' of being the first person to attempt pad-ched of Maharaaj Jee's Saroop, although this was in the form of Sencheeyaan. Apparently the actual printing press he had hired for the purpose was forcefully stopped by Gursikhs during the first print-run, before the first Senchee could be completed.

Once again the issue came to the attention of Chief Khalsa Diwan and SGPC when a group of printers and their cronies attempted to push forward the pad-ched printing of Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop. Chief Khalsa Diwan stated the following about the matter in 1945, after a meeting where both sides of the argument were put across by both lobbies i.e. pro and anti pad-ched proponents:

“The matter of doing Akhand Paatth from Birs with separated-words was presented together with the opinions of advisors, it was directed that neither is it proper to do the Parkaash of Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Ji from such Birs nor is it proper to do Akhand Paatth from such Birs and it is not appropriate and it is harmful to the Panth to publish and bind separated words form (of Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee) in one cover. A copy of this decision should be sent to the Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and it should also be published in common (public) newspapers.” (Resolution No. 2682; 21/1/1945 - Working Committee - Chief Khalsa Diwan).

This resolution was sent to the SGPC. Here’s what they had to say about the matter in 1950, after having given the issue and the above resolution due consideration for over 5 years:

“Gurmatta Number 1637 dated 28th May, 1950, of the Executive Committee of the Shromani Committee about the publication or the Parkaash of the separated words form of Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee, about which the advice of the Dharmic Salahkaar (Religious Advisory) Committee was asked, was presented and passed to the effect that until such time as the matter is decided by the Panth, any one individual or organisation should not publish separated words form Beerhs nor should such a Birs be placed in Parkaash state (for holy sight and paying respects to i.e. for darshan, and for reading). (Gurmatta No. 7; 1/1/1950 - Dharmik Committee of Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee)

It was during the 1960’s, when the SGPC, despite their previous resolution, allowed certain printers to carry-out pad-ched. Pad-ched has never become Panth-Parvaan (accepted by Panth). Sangat Jeeo, the sad fact is that printing was done through the back-door, with the SGPC who published the original Gurmatta against pad-ched, literally co-ordinating the process, without any due consideration for anyone’s opinions or feelings, let alone the wider Panth’s. Sangat Jeeo, these are the disgusting facts behind pad-ched of Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop.

The key question is: How did that which was harmful to the Panth in 1945/1950, according to these Gurmattas, become desirable and acceptable during the 1960’s? It is this question, originally posed by Jathedar Bhai Raam Singh Jee of the Akhand Keertanee Jatha, which remains un-answerable. Shame on those who carried-out this unfaithful and egotistical act. There was money to be made because there were very lax Gurdwara ‘Sevadaars’ and ‘Parchaaraks’ the world over and the ‘Sangat’ were williing to take the ‘easier road’ of reading from pad-ched the moment it was offered. Like all good monopolists, the SGPC knew they were placed to make lots of money; especially since they were the ‘installed custodians of the Panth’.

The harsh truth is that Maharaaj Jee’s One and Only True Saroop is rare today because of these ‘custodians’ who wanted to make money and pander to the un-informed masses. Our so-called ‘leaders’ were blind…but why should we follow their blind lead? At least we should respect the binding nature of a ‘Gurmatta’ or do we, like them, really not have faith in Him whose Mat we claim to base our decisions upon?

Sometimes, people do not view pad-ched as a problem because so and so Sants/elders have told them it is ‘not a big deal’. Despite what these elders may think, it is up to us all as individuals to use our Guroo-given Bibek Budhi (discriminatory wisdom) to arrive at final conclusions. We are not to treat any one individual as the voice of Siree Guroo Sahib Jee. That would do us, them and Maharaaj Jee a seriously big disservice. The elders’/Sants’ valuable and experience-based thoughts should assist us in our personal Gurmat decision-making process, especially when those elders/Sants’ have a strong Gursikhee Jeevan. However, the elders/Sants should not completely determine our conclusions, even by virtue of their experience or indeed Gursikhee Jeevan.

With that firmly in mind, let us consider some opinions whioch would go against those elders/Sants who believe pad-ched is an acceptable act. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randheer Singh Jee, when discussing mistakes made by Gursikhs when doing pad-ched of words whilst reading Gurbanee, has written in his book Gurbani Dee Laagan Maataran Da Vilakhantia:

"…[therefore] to print or have printed pad-ched birs of Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee is Mahaa-Manmat (Supreme Manmat). This is because they [the people who are reading], according to their own wisdom/knowledge, separate the words. Therefore, printing pad-ched Siree Guroo Granth Sahib is the work of shallow/ignorant knowledge. There are also many other reasons that the boat of Gurbaanee (to ferry across the worldly ocean), Siree Guroo Granth Sahib, should not have pad-ched birs printed. Even writers, printers and scholars who are aware of the grammar rules of Gurbaanee make mistakes when doing pad-chhed…"

Let’s take another example. Bhai Raam Singh Jee, former Jathedaar Sahib of the Akhand Keertanee Jatha, has written the following in his amazing tract, ‘Lareevaar Saroop’, regarding pad-ched:

“Kalgidhar Paatshah before merging with the Divine Light, commanded the Sikhs, “This is my command, that you must place (total) faith in the Granth (Sahib Jee) as your Guroo”. Having said this, Kalgidhar Paatshah bowed before the Lareevaar Saroop of Satguroo, Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee, in the traditional way. It was the Darshan (holy sight) of the Lareevaar Saroop which was ordained by Siree Guroo Gobind Singh Jee. However, we have used our headstrong cleverness to convert this approved form to the form with separated words so that Paath can be done easily and quickly. The suggested single sheet Paath by the Kookay (Naamdharis) and pad-ched, both arise from egoistic cleverness and are both condemnable. The Kookay intended to split-up Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee into single sheets but the Panth regarded this as sacreligious and protested massively; the Kookay were stopped from doing this misdeed. We were so hurt when we heard about the move to split Siree Guroo Granth Sahib Jee into single sheets, regarding it to be an irreligious act. The Panth united and protested strongly to stop it. However, seeing the words of the Lareevaar Saroop of Sireee Guroo Granth Sahib Jee being split failed to rouse us. Why do we regard one type of Manmat which is harmful to the Panth’s Chardee Kalaa as not tolerable and the other as desirable? In both situations, disrespect is shown to Gurbanee. If the form of the invincible Khalsa has been prescribed as distinct by the Kalgidhar Paatshah, then consider it as set in stone that the Saroop of the Guroo is also special. And that special Saroop is the Lareevaar Saroop, not the pad-ched form”.

Despite what others may think, I find the above arguments put forward by these particular elders convincing. However, that is not my primary point - do you now see why I say that we should never COMPLETELY rely on elders/Sants for our final conclusions? Which elders/Sants sha’ll we rely upon when we are presented with conflicting views?

Master Jaswant Singh Jee, the well-known Akhand Keertanee Jatha elder, laments the fact that at the time pad-ched took momentum, neither the Akhand Keertanee Jatha nor Damdami Taksaal took any kind of stand to prevent what was happening. Historically, these two Jathebandeean have had a firm stand regarding Lareevaar Saroop whereas now, especially outside of Panjaab, they do not take such a firm stand. Incidentally, Baba Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwalae Jee would not even allow his students to use pad-ched Senchiyan or Gutka Sahibs. I also believe it was either him or his successor, Baba Kartaar Singh Bhindranwalae, who also stated that pad-ched is 'maha-manmat’. What amazing examples of Bibek Budhi. It is shame that both Jathebandees have become so lax in recent times; their shared influence upon the worldwide Sangat could have prevented such a situation.

Let us move onto one of the core issues in more detail. The Panth, even if it met today via Sarbat Khalsa tradition, would not be in unanimous agreement about whether within pad-ched Saroop, even from the 3rd Word onwards, as to what is mistaken and what is not. Should we read 'SatNaam' as two words or one? How would this affect meaning? Master Jaswant Singh Jee has made the above argument in his short tract, ‘The True Guroo is Lost’, and gives the following example:

“A true Sikh comes to his senses right here. He repents and returns from the thought of doing pad-chhed. He asks the stubborn bemukhs, 'will you keep Sat and Naam apart or together?" How will you solve this issue? You have kept Sat apart, but hundreds of times, when the briefest form of the Mool Mantar comes, "Ek oankar Satgurparsaad", there you join “Sat” with “Gurparsaad.” Why is this?”

Does the above point not show how badly the pad-ched producers are governed by Manmat, Dubidya and faithlessness, that they can allow such a situation to even occur, where they contradict their own pad-ched decisions? Even though the Panth is in such implicit disagreement, we have felt free to place our Dubidya into Maharaaj Jee’s Perfect Roop. As Maharaaj Jee says: ‘aap aapnee budh hai jethee , barnat bhin bhin tuhae tethee’. It is the Guroo-given understanding, through Gurprasaad, that allows us to read and to attempt to comprehend Maharaaj Jee. This comes down to, in the final analysis, a deeply personal and spiritual journey. Who is that person who dares stand between your Guroo Sahib and you, who decides the Budh that you must undeniably receive…that Budh which they, in there clever-mindedness have decided, through doing pad-ched of Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop, and placing themselves as Siree Guroo Sahib Jee’s executors as a result! They knowingly place their 'opinions' within Akalee Banee knowing that there are many differences of opinion! Should another human-being get to have the final say as to exactly what Maharaaj Jee is telling us; pad-ched places us in this situation.

Sangat jee, please don’t dismiss these arguments. How are we better than the Namdhaarees? We are worse because we should know better. We have physically ripped Maharaj Jee’s Shabad Roop to pieces and we have happily introduced Bholaan (mistakes) into That which we claim to regard as Abhol (without mistakes). This is a major Dhil (lapse); there is no way to deny it.

If these points are not convincing enough, let us move onto just one of the many Pankteean which have been identified as examples of why pad-ched Saroop simply doesn't work. Bear in mind that according to knowledgeable Gursikhs, there are over 500 different examples of controversial pad-ched occurrences for which there is currently no unanimous agreement! That is over one latent mistake that have been introduced into Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop per 3 Angs! Also bear in mind that technically speaking, there are different pad-ched Saroops saying different things. The mind boggles at the mistakes and inconsistencies we have created. Here is just one example which should suffice. Please tell me: which pad-ched attempt is right and which is wrong:

hmmskInKudweIbMdyqum rwjsuminBwvY ]

ham masakeen khudhaaee ba(n)dhae thum raajas man bhaavai ||

I am Your humble servant, Vahiguroo; Your Praises are pleasing to my mind.

(Shabdarath; Teeka Faridkot)

hmmskInKudweIbMdyqumrw jsuminBwvY ]

ham masakeen khudhaaee ba(n)dhae thumraa jas man bhaavai ||

I am a humble slave of Vahiguroo, (but) egoistic power (of administration) pleases you.

(Bhai Veer Singh Jee; Prof. Sahib Singh Jee)

(Ang 480)

Which possible 'pad-ched created Arth' is correct, which is incorrect? One addresses Maharaaj Jee whilst the other addresses Munmukhs! Please consider such a distasteful situation! Also is it right to be intentionally reading something which has been decided by us, but not clearly sanctioned by Maharaaj Jee? Sangat Jee, the Dubidya will only increase unless we come to our senses. Only Maharaaj Jee has the Vahiguroo-ordained Right to Decide...He did...in His wonderous un-breakable, un-fathomable Lareevaar Form and we are now working against Him by printing, publishing, promoting and using pad-ched Saroop.

Let us go back to Maharaaj Jee for guidance. Maharaaj Jee is the One and Only Kaswati/Paras Kalaa Who will take away all of our doubts in this world, as we walk upon the path of Gurmat. Maharaaj Jee's Shabad-Roop is the greatest Hukam; all other Hukams are contained within It and flow from It. A Gursikh can never even contemplate tampering with and therefore challenging Maharaaj Jee's Saroop - to do so is Maha Manmat of the highest order, going completely against against His Hukam:

AmruvyprvwhuhYiqsunwilisAwxpncleInhujiqkrxIjwie ]

amar vaeparavaahu hai this naal siaanap n chalee n hujath karanee jaae ||

The Order of the Lord is beyond challenge. Clever tricks and arguments will not work against it.

AwpuCoifsrxwiepvYmMinleyrjwie ]

aap shhodd saranaae pavai ma(n)n leae razaae ||

So abandon your self-conceit, and take to His Sanctuary; accept the Order of His Will.

(Ang 1251)

That Will has eternally manifested Itself within Maharaaj Jee’s Saroop, The Pothi of Parmeshar. Who are we to decide whether Maharaaj Jee can be improved; whether we should change a little here or there? Has Siree Guroo Sahib Jee been demoted to One who must change to suit our needs? The Gursikh should always know that their Guroo is Perfect and unquestionable in every sense; they should never even dream of such an act as advocating pad-ched of His Saroop.

pUrykwkIAwsBikCupUrwGitviDikCunwhI ]

poorae kaa keeaa sabh kishh pooraa ghatt vadhh kishh naahee ||

All that the Perfect Lord does is perfect; there is not too little, or too much.

nwnkgurmuiKAYswjwxYpUrymWihsmWhI ]33]

naanak guramukh aisaa jaanai poorae maa(n)hi samaa(n)hee ||33||

O Nanak, knowing this as Gurmukh, the mortal merges into the Perfect Lord God. ||33||

(Ang 1412)

Has Satguroo Jee asked us to carry out or tolerate pad-ched of His Partakh Roop? Do we feel that we are worthy of making decisions on His behalf? Or maybe we should have been consulted:

hirjoikCukrysuAwpyAwpyEhupUiCniksYkrybIcwir ]

har jo kishh karae s aapae aapae ouhu pooshh n kisai karae beechaar ||

Whatever the Lord does, He does by Himself. He does not ask or consult anyone else.

(Ang 1135)

We are un-caring about the fact that Maharaaj Jee's Saroop has physically been cut into pieces. In fact by condoning it and going along with it, we are party to it.

kkwkwrnkrqwsoaU ]

kakaa kaaran karathaa sooo ||

KAKKA: He is the Creator, the Cause of causes.

iliKElyKunmytqkoaU ]

likhiou laekh n maettath kooo ||

No one can erase His pre-ordained plan.

nhIhoqkCudoaUbwrw ]

nehee hoth kashh dhooo baaraa ||

Nothing can be done a second time.

krnYhwrunBUlnhwrw ]

karanaihaar n bhoolanehaaraa ||

The Creator Lord does not make mistakes.

kwhUpMQuidKwrYAwpY ]

kaahoo pa(n)thh dhikhaarai aapai ||

To some, He Himself shows the Way.

kwhUauidAwnBRmqpCuqwpY ]

kaahoo oudhiaan bhramath pashhuthaapai ||

While He causes others to wander miserably in the wilderness.

AwpnKyluAwphIkIno ]

aapan khael aap hee keeno ||

He Himself has set His own play in motion.

jojodInosunwnklIno ]17]

jo jo dheeno s naanak leeno ||17||

Whatever He gives, O Nanak, that is what we receive. ||17||

(Ang 253)

Let us all accept these Panktees completely, in both Word and Spirit. Vaheguroo makes Perfect Plans which are Perfect. The job of a Daas is to receive the Perfection which is given to them by their Guroo Sahib without questioning or challenging anything. Those who initiated pad-ched Saroop interfered with The SatGuroo...those of us who promote it or do not speak against it have accepted that interfering with SatGuroo Jee is acceptable. What is the difference between them and us?

Sadh-Sangat Jeeo, there are many other Shabads which could be used to make the point that is being made. We are all simply so used to pad-ched Saroop, the respected elders are so used to pad-ched Saroop, that we find it difficult to accept the reality of the situation. Bibekh-Budhi walae Singhs always say that one Dhil (lapse/slackness) leads to many others and creates Dubidya regarding that Gursikh's Gurmat-walee Sochnee. Those who do not believe that pad-ched Saroop is a major Dhil and believe it is instead Parvaan should consider the following scenarios...do these scenarios not force Dubidya into your mind:

> Would we be happy if the Anmrit Sanchaar we were about to attend as an Abhilakee had Parkaash of pad-ched Senchiyan (or for that matter Larevaar Senchiyan) instead of the traditional single Saroop?

> Why would we be unhappy…what is more important…the binding or the contents…yet it seems we are happy with the Gurshabad being forcefully cut-apart…over, and over, and over again...yet we worry more about the binding...Is it not the actual Gurbanee that carries the power? Should we not focus upon that?

> If the seperation of the binding still troubles us, then lets's ask ourselves: why are we more interested in the singularity of the binding of Maharaaj Jee’s Bir, rather than the integrity of the Guroo-ordained Binding of His actual Shabad-Roop i.e. Lareevaar Roop?

> If we have modified Maharaaj Jee's Perfect One and Only Original Form into pad-ched form, does that mean that Lareevaar Saroop was in need of 'more Perfection'. ..for we only 'modify' something if we wish to 'improve' it...we only 'fix' something if it is 'broken'. So can that which we claim to accept as the very epitome of Perfection Incarnate, Maharaj Jee's Saroop, be 'perfected more'? Is this not a contradiction in terms?

> If Maharaaj Jee's Partakh Darshan is Shabad-Roop, are we really having His Partakh Darshan even though the pad-ched Saroop is not that same Blessed Roop that the Gurgaddi was passed onto in 1708?

> If pad-ched and Lareevaar Saroop are equal and there is no difference, then let's be happy that Maharaaj Jee's Original Saroop is becoming rare; certainly, it is easier to read from, and generate money, from pad-ched Saroop...so why spend all that time on 'the other equal form' which takes longer to read? They're both equal right? Let's instead 'do Maharaaj Jee's Seva' by ensuring that nobody has to 'suffer the difficulty and indignity' of reading from Maharaaj Jee's Original Saroop...because both Saroops are equal right?

I will stop now. Do you see what I mean? We have created this situation by accepting, using and promoting pad-ched Saroop. One Dhil, perhaps the Dhil of Dhils, has lead to all this. Let us genuinely accept that we all make mistakes, and let's look towards a solution. Surely, Siree Guroo Sahib Jee will be happy with our intentions. We his children (the youth, elders, everyone) have made mistakes and will continue to do so, Sacheh Patshaah, who is Abholan-haar and never makes mistakes, will surely forgive us. Only that person truly accepts their mistake, whom corrects it upon such realisation.

I have not intended to offend anyone with my comments. I simply and sincerely believe that we should, wherever possible, speak against the practice, promotion and use of pad-ched Saroop, and find pleasure only in Maharaaj's Hukamee Lareevaar Saroop, which unlike the man-made pad-ched Saroop, can never be mistaken. Please remember that whenever we read, write or print Gurbanee, we are liable to make mistakes. Maharaaj Jee is not:

hmBUlhqumsdwABUlwhmpiqqqumpiqqauDrIAw ]

ham bhooleh thum sadhaa abhoolaa ham pathith thum pathith oudhhareeaa ||

We are mistaken; You are never mistaken. I am a sinner; You are the Saving Grace of sinners.

(Ang 1213)

If after reading this you believe that Maharaaj Jee's Lareevar Saroop must be preserved, please take it upon yourself to make a change. It won't be easy, because Gurmat never is...and was never supposed to be.

VahegurooJeeKaKhalsa,VahegurooJeeKeeFateh!

[Kumi2]

laaridaar is a must the true guroo is in laaridaar without laaridaar the true guroo is lost

harsh words but true believe it or not

[Wicked Warrior]

I remember learning about lareevar saroop a few years back. Before then, I had no idea Gurbani wasn't meant to be in pad-ched form - just thought that's the way it was and always has been.

Indeed, I even brought up a topic based on this soon after joining here. It was then that I found out the Gurbani was Pad-ched formatted by the SPGC who both publicly stated it was wrong AND at the same time funded it all.

Now I realise why all the extra biharis, siharis, onkurs and dulunkers are there.

I just wish I could do something about it.

[nWo]

i think all amrith sanchaars should have lareevar saroops that is 101% essential

[Guest baba amarjeet singh]

bang on

[Kumi2]

I remember learning about lareevar saroop a few years back. Before then, I had no idea Gurbani wasn't meant to be in pad-ched form - just thought that's the way it was and always has been.

Indeed, I even brought up a topic based on this soon after joining here. It was then that I found out the Gurbani was Pad-ched formatted by the SPGC who both publicly stated it was wrong AND at the same time funded it all.

Now I realise why all the extra biharis, siharis, onkurs and dulunkers are there.

I just wish I could do something about it.

and they also added a whole extra ang but that my view on it

[Wicked Warrior]

and they also added a whole extra ang but that my view on it

You mean in the formatting of it? With all the extra spaces?

How many angs were there meant to be?

[rsingh79]

Just one point.

The one fact is definitley not true. Sant Kartar Singh Ji said "the person who changed lareevar bani into pad ched was doing their own manmath" NOT Pad ched saroop is manmath, Bani is bani, when we recite, sing it, or read it be it lareevar or pad ched.

Im all for lareevar bani, but I do not use that as an excuss to not bow my head to bani be it lareevar, pad ched, some one singing bani or someone doing gurbani paat.

There are some people who are taking things to extreme's by not doing namskar to Pad Ched Siri Guru Granth Sahib Jee's saroop.

Honestly, the only person loosing out is them, no skin of my nose. So they can carry on, but they should try to justify the manmath of not doing namskar to pad ched bani.

[Singhstah]

Just one point.

The one fact is definitley not true. Sant Kartar Singh Ji said "the person who changed lareevar bani into pad ched was doing their own manmath" NOT Pad ched saroop is manmath, Bani is bani, when we recite, sing it, or read it be it lareevar or pad ched.

Im all for lareevar bani, but I do not use that as an excuss to not bow my head to bani be it lareevar, pad ched, some one singing bani or someone doing gurbani paat.

There are some people who are taking things to extreme's by not doing namskar to Pad Ched Siri Guru Granth Sahib Jee's saroop.

Honestly, the only person loosing out is them, no skin of my nose. So they can carry on, but they should try to justify the manmath of not doing namskar to pad ched bani.

Most definently agree, my Guroo is my Guroo no matta what, all gurbani is there, all in the EXACT same order, however yes i do agree that eventually lareevar saroop sahib should be brought back everywhere, it was definetly wrong to change they orignal form, but its wrong to say thats not guroo ji.

[nWo]

hold up the nwo has being doing research and thought of it like this

so a singh or singhni can cut there kesh, there still a gursikh sound silly dont it like what you just said singhstah

my Guroo is my Guroo

if a sikh cuts there hair there no longer a sikh

then if some tampers with Mahraja it can be no longer Mahraja because this MAHAN BEADBI HAS BEING DONE!