In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
And what is this so-called "right view"?
This is it:
...the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
I sincerely do not understand why you are quoting this to me. This is precisely my point. As I said above, when I quoted the same passage, "In the Pali Canon the Buddha explicitly identifies this teaching as the twelve links of dependent origination." This quotation is where he does it. Ignorance and so forth are the twelve links of dependent origination. What lies between absolute existence and absolute nonexistence, between the false views of "eternalism" (Pali sassatavada) and "annihilationism" (Pali ucchedavada), is dependent arising, relative existence.
This is also Nagarjuna's point. This very discourse (a Sanskrit version actually) is one of the principal sources of Nagarjuna's method: "The Victorious One, through knowledge Of reality and unreality, In the Discourse to Katyayana, Refuted both 'it is' and 'it is not.'" MMK XV.7 (Incidentally, there are at least six teachings that the Buddha explicitly identifies as Right View in the Pali scriptures. Dependent Arising is not the only one.)
If you are interpreting this to mean simply that the Buddha refused to say that anything exists or does not exist, this is demonstrably false. The Buddha did speak of things that he said did or did not exist on more than one occasion. For example, in the Khandhasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya in the second division of fifty there is the Puppha Sutta or "Flower Discourse." Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the title as "Flowers." (This is on p. 949 in BB's translation.) In it the Buddha says:
"Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
"And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change... Feeling... Perception... Volitional formations... Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change..." (He goes on to say that impermanent aggregates do exist.)
By your own interpretation (if I understand you correctly) the Buddha would seem to be a speculative philosopher here and one should not listen to him.