అడుక్కు తినేవాడికి ఆలు, భాగ్యవంతుడికి బానిస అయింది మేలు!

This proverb is used to describe a situation where someone who is already in a miserable or poor condition is visited by someone else who is equally or even more destitute, looking for help. It highlights the irony of seeking assistance from someone who has nothing to give.

This proverb is used to describe someone who has committed massive crimes or blunders and views smaller offenses as insignificant. It can also refer to people with extreme habits or capabilities for whom minor challenges are trivial.

A thoroughly bad man won't stick at trifles.

This proverb highlights the irony of human traditions where people spend extravagantly on funeral rituals and feasts for the deceased, often by borrowing money, which leaves the surviving family members in deep financial distress. It is used to criticize performative social customs that prioritize ritualistic honor over the practical welfare of the living.

This proverb is used to describe how people tend to appreciate the value of someone or something only after they are lost. It highlights the human tendency to ignore virtues during a person's lifetime but praise them excessively once they are gone.

This expression suggests that security and basic comforts provided by a wealthy household are preferable to the extreme hardships and instability of poverty. It is used to describe a pragmatic choice where one prioritizes material survival over status or perceived freedom in destitute conditions.

This proverb is used to describe a person who handles massive tasks or challenges and finds small, trivial problems insignificant. It suggests that someone accustomed to grand or difficult things will not be bothered or satisfied by minor, petty matters. It is often used to mock someone trying to threaten or tempt a powerful person with something very small.

This proverb highlights the concept of relative wealth and survival. In a place where resources are extremely scarce and poverty is widespread, even the person with the most basic necessities is considered fortunate or rich. It is used to describe situations where standards are so low that minimal sustenance is seen as a luxury.

This expression is used to describe a situation where a person who is already poor or struggling is burdened by someone even worse off. It highlights the irony of a needy person being followed by someone seeking help from them, despite having nothing to give.

This expression highlights the extreme difference in perspectives and priorities based on one's life circumstances. It suggests that while those in suffering or poverty might see death as an escape from their miseries, those with resources are driven by the ambition to accumulate even more success and prosperity. It is often used to describe the contrasting mindsets of the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.

This expression suggests that serving a powerful or noble person provides more security and dignity than collaborating with a mean-spirited or incompetent person. In a partnership with an unworthy person, one faces constant friction and risk, whereas serving a strong person offers stability and protection. It is used when choosing between two difficult situations, favoring the one with more inherent value or stability.