పట్టినవాడు పక్కి అంటే, గట్టునున్నవాడు జెల్ల అన్నట్లు

This proverb is used to describe a situation where someone who has no involvement or knowledge in a matter tries to contradict or argue with the person who actually did the work or has firsthand experience. It highlights the tendency of people to offer unwanted and uninformed opinions.

This proverb highlights that a person suffering from a disease and a person forced into unpaid manual labor (vetti) share a similar plight—both lose their freedom of will and are under a constant state of suffering or compulsion. It is used to describe situations where a person has no choice but to endure hardship.

This expression emphasizes that the person who pays for something or takes the risk of purchasing it is the one who truly enjoys the benefits or consequences of it. In a broader sense, it suggests that ownership or direct investment leads to the right of consumption or usage.

This proverb highlights that some experiences leave an indelible mark on a person's memory. It specifically refers to acts of extreme kindness (giving food to the hungry) and acts of extreme humiliation or physical pain (getting beaten). Both the person who was helped in their time of need and the person who was wronged/punished will remember those moments forever.

This expression describes a situation where a person who has no firsthand experience or involvement in a task tries to correct or contradict the person who is actually doing the work. It is used to mock people who offer unsolicited and inaccurate advice from a safe distance without understanding the ground reality.

This expression is used to describe a situation where one has spent all their resources or money on a temporary event, and now both the means and the occasion are gone. It implies that a period of enjoyment or an opportunity has passed, leaving the person empty-handed. Often used to reflect on wasted money or the end of a festive period.

This proverb highlights a social irony where resources and gifts often flow toward those who already have plenty, rather than those in need. It is used to describe situations where people prioritize pleasing influential or wealthy individuals while ignoring the underprivileged.

This proverb describes a situation where people stubbornly argue over their own perceptions or biases, even when the facts are clear. It is used to mock people who contradict someone with firsthand experience or those who insist on their own version of the truth despite evidence to the contrary.

This proverb emphasizes the equality of life and death, suggesting that wealth (a mansion) doesn't guarantee immortality, and poverty (a hut) doesn't mean immediate demise. It is used to remind people that fate and time are the ultimate deciders, regardless of one's social or economic status.

This proverb highlights a social irony where wealth continues to flow toward the wealthy. It describes a situation where both the rich and the poor tend to favor, gift, or serve those who are already influential and affluent, while those in actual need are often ignored.