शैव

Ramayana is in the news so Audrey is “loosely translating” with her lurid takes again… Valmiki never wrote "harem pet" or "furniture cover." Just as he never said Sita calls Rama a “misogynist pig.” Here's what the text says. On the living deer, Aranya Kanda 3.43.16: अन्तःपुरविभूषार्थो मृग एष भविष्यति
antaḥpura-vibhūṣārtho mṛga eṣa bhaviṣyati "This deer will be an ornament of the inner palace." Not “harem.” Sita is talking about after the exile, when they're back in Ayodhya. The word is vibhūṣā, ornament. It's a marvel to bring home to Bharata and the queen mothers. It isn't a "pet," and it isn't a harem plaything. We also know that Rama never took another wife, let alone kept a harem. On the slain deer, 3.43.19: शष्पबृस्यां विनीतायामिच्छाम्यहमुपासितुम्
śaṣpa-bṛsyāṃ vinītāyām icchāmy aham upāsitum "I wish to sit on its golden skin, spread over a seat of tender grass." A bṛsī is an ascetic's grass seat. She's a forest-dweller in exile, picturing herself sitting beside Rama. That isn't upholstery or a "furniture cover." Rama even pictures the same scene himself a few verses later (3.43.34). So "harem pet" and "furniture cover" aren't translations. Each one picks the most lurid or trivial reading available so that Sita comes off as decadent and vain. The text doesn't support either. We've seen this before. In 2018 Truschke "loosely translated" Sita at the agnipariksha as calling Rama a "misogynist pig." Robert Goldman, the translator she cited, disowned it. She starts from a Sanskrit word, takes the most loaded English you can find, and presents it as scholarship. That's academic malpractice. And it’s a pattern.