Berkeley said this.
Let’s look at with Kant.
That existence is a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived.
Let’s simplify it and call existence a relationship between the subject and the object.
Now, we’ve said before, that if you focus on the object, as we normally consider it in scientific inquiry, the subject cannot fail to become less meaningful, and the object moreso.
To the extent of which it would appears the subject falls away completely, and the facts seem to exist altogether without anyone to perceive them, exemplified by the truism “The Facts Speak for Themselves.” And if they did, to whom would they speak?
But we can also go the other direction, and magnify the subject, as we do in the expression “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound,” which is also from Berkeley.
And this focuses on the subject to the extent point where facts do not exist, for they have become meaningless to any possible subject.
In other words, that a subject can exist with no object to perceive, which is also not so possible, and there is no corresponding idiom, though I suppose we can make one.
It would be the opposite of the facts speaking for themselves.
This manipulation of the subject object relationship, we could basically call Karma. If the meaning is not with the object it must be with the subject, and vice versa, and so on for other things.