Looking around I can see that all of the things seeming to exist gain their existence from me. That is to say, by my definition they “are.” Should that mean that all definitions are ambiguous and irrelevant? Self-centered and ultimately erroneous?
Analyzing definitions more broadly I find that each being or object defined shares certain characteristics that are parallel with every other being or object in my imagination. This leads me to believe that there must be something out there that defines everything as a whole. Something that exists despite my awkward definitions. Something that destroys that mundane randomness of my own imperfect vision. What am I seeing?
That’s correct nothing exists for you if you do not exist. You are the beginning and the end of all your existence. Definitions are not ambiguous. Rather they are relative to your existence. It is not self-centered, because knowing yourself is the beginning of all enlightenment. Observe how everyone wants you to follow their way. If you do so without realizing the center (i.e. you) you become fragmented and are no more able to exert yourself as you are.
The whole is the universe you project from the understanding of your existence. Randomness is also a product of that projection.
I believe that you can see what you want and see what you feel, because the people who mind don’t matter and the people who matter don’t mind. In my perspective, I belive that everyone has the right to decipher what they can and cannot see. We have our eyes that see what we want them to see. Our minds tell us the definition of what is there. If an old lady calls a hospital and claims that she sees purple elephants in her living room, the receptionist should tell the lady that she is dillusional, she should be comforting even though the receptionist knows that they aren’t really there there.
