You can use Fixpoint instead of Definition. I encourage you to look at the documentation if you want to know more about them.
Fixpoint myDefinition A :=
forall B C, (myDefinition B) \/ (A = C).
Note that something like the above wouldn't be accepted as terminating by Coq and hence as a valid definition. Once again, the documentation should explain what you can and can't do with examples.
Edit
If you definition is supposed to be a type, then you can also define it as an inductive type.
Inductive myDefinition (A : Prop) : Prop :=
| myDef : forall B C, (myDefinition B) \/ (A = C) -> myDefinition A.
Here we say that to build a proof of myDefinition A it is sufficient to prove forall B C, (myDefinition B) \/ (A = C). Which is what you wanted.
You will probably have a hard time proving it however, but perhaps your concrete case is different.
Ato be a piece of data (like a number or a string), if that is the case, then recursion is strictly restricted by the inductive structure of the datatype. - Yves