What are you asking? How to parse "the rock exists" for an illusionary rock? How to pars "the illusion exists" for an illusion? Once you decide, you can parse each, easily.

If "the rock exists" says nothing about the rock, if the rock might be illusory, how can "the rock exists" point out that the rock is not an illusion?

How can "god exists" be meaningful?

The rock might be an illusion, it might not. You are playing on various senses of 'exists". That's the generic issue I pointed to in my response to your OP:

You are asking the wrong question. You might usefully ask what such-and-such is, or how we use the term "such-and-such". — Banno

Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition? — hypericin

The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent.

The relation between real and unreal needs to be distinguished...... — Mww

Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question. — hypericin

If thoughts are real, then everything thought about must be as real as the thought of it, insofar as an empty thought is a contradiction. But the real in thought is never sufficient for the empirical existence of its object in reality. Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it.

The validity of things real in thought is a determination of logical reason a priori, and is called a cognition (of); the proof of the reality of the things real in thought, is a determination of practical reason a posteriori, and is called experience (of).

Perhaps now it is clear the original argument is grammatically flawed, insofar far as the existence of “this rock” in a particular time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason, but the existence of “the rock”, which is not necessarily “this rock” but merely signifies any rock in general, of arbitrary past or future time and place, is regulated by its mode of reason. It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes.
————-

When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts. — hypericin

The saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent. The only reason for language is the impossibility of communication by thinking. When I tell you my thoughts are real, all I’m doing is informing you about something of which I’ve already informed myself.
————

You will have thoughts whether or not you think about having thoughts. ↪Mww — hypericin

Of course. And.......??? Not sure how this tautological truism relates to what’s been said.

Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it. — Mww

Yes this is obvious.

It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes. — Mww

I don't really know what you are going on about. And it is frankly not interesting to me. I don't want to quibble about grammar. My question is, do the past and future exist? My phrasing in the op was an attempt to eliminate "define exist" responses. This was a blunder on my part.

he saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent — Mww

More quibbling. My point is, the reality of thought is not an argument against the notion of "real" as "mind independence", in the sense that its existence is not contingent on thought. Thought is real insofar as its existence is not contingent on thought about thought.

I see only one sense of exist. The lump of granite exists, or it does not. The deity exists, or it does not. The past exists, or it does not.

And the relevance of your self quote, afaict, does not exist.

The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent. — dimosthenis9

A better definition is "existence independent of thoughts about it".