What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon?

[This subsection of Wikipedia's *Two Truths* article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, but that there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". > ***Two Truths > Origin and development > Early Indian Buddhism > Pali Canon*** > > In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower *truth* and a higher *truth*, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as *neyyattha* or *samuti* or *vohāra*, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth. > > *Nītattha* (Pāli; Sanskrit: *nītārtha*), "of plain or clear meaning" and *neyyattha* (Pāli; Sanskrit: *neyartha*), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A *nītattha* text required no explanation, while a *neyyattha* one might mislead some people unless properly explained: > > > There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning. If you diagree with these statements, please say so. Or if you agree with these statements, then please explain again: what is "a sutta of indirect meaning" (either in your own words or by referencing someone else's explanation); and cite some illustrative example[s] of "a sutta of indirect meaning". Also is there a specific, official, or famous commentary on the suttas where they're "classed" like that (i.e. classified or described as *neyyattha* or *samuti* or *vohāra*)?