Neither can we define reality as “any X that has the property of being rather than non-being”? “Being,” like “exists,” is just another way of referring to what is real, and thus this too is tautologous.
Neither can we say that “reality is that which is mind-independent” because this definition excludes the mind from the realm of reality. Surely the mind is real. If it weren’t, it couldn’t be contemplating the proper definition of reality!
How do we define reality in a way that avoids tautologies or excludes certain things we know to be real?
And is there a difference between the definition of reality (kind-defining) and the way we determine what is real? For example, I think William Lane Craig defines existence as any X that exemplifies at least one property. That is definitely a good test for determining if some X is real, but does that really tell me what it means to say some X is real?