Does MN 60 contradict SN 12.15? If so, why is it so?

[SN 12:15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) states: > *By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when > one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right > discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not > occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually > is with right discernment, '**existence** (**atthitañceva**)' with reference to the world > does not occur to one. 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. > 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. It's to this > extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.* [MN 60 Apannaka Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html) states: > *...this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a > doctrine of non-existence.'* > > *...this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a > doctrine of **existence (atthikavādo)**.'* My reading of these two suttas gives an impression of a contradiction. MN 60 appears to state the 'doctrine of existence' ('atthikavādo') is right view. But SN 12.15 appears to state the 'view of existence' ('atthitañceva') is wrong view. Is this a contradiction? If so, what is the cause, what is the reason, for this?