What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon? This subsection of Wikipedia's Two Truths article says that the &quot;two truths&quot; distinction is not made in the suttas, but that there are some &quot;suttas of indirect meaning&quot;.

Two Truths &gt; Origin and development &gt; Early Indian Buddhism &gt; 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), &quot;of plain or clear meaning&quot; and neyyattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: neyartha), &quot;[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed&quot;. 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 &quot;a sutta of indirect meaning&quot; (either in your own words or by referencing someone else's explanation); and cite some illustrative example[s] of &quot;a sutta of indirect meaning&quot;.
Also is there a specific, official, or famous commentary on the suttas where they're &quot;classed&quot; like that (i.e. classified or described as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra)?
From Neyyattha Sutta (A 2.3):


  Bhikshus, there are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. What are the two?
  Those who explain a sutta whose sense is direct as indirect. Those who explain a sutta whose sense is indirect as direct. These, bhikshus, are the two who misrepresent the Tathagata.


Examples of provisional teachings from Dharmafarer's analysis of Neyyattha Nītattha Sutta:



  Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc,
  need to have their meaning drawn out (neyyattha), as they do not directly refer to true reality.


  Certain passages in the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and related texts, for example, refer to a post-Buddha non-Buddhist situation, reminiscent of strategic placement or geomancy.


  "offering to the devas" as mentioned in the Ādiya Sutta (A 5.41)


  The Nandamātā Sutta (A 7.50) gives an account of dedication of merit to the deva Vessavaṇa.


  "Dedicating merit" is a provisional teaching.  The point is clear that merit is non-negotiable and non-transferable, as stated in the Nidhikaṇḍa Sutta (Khp
  8).



From interview with Ven. Bhikkhu K. Ñānananda ("comments on the Neyyattha Sutta, which seems to have been the seed out of which the Two Truths doctrine has been developed"): 



  The traditional interpretation, as you get in the commentaries, is very simple: it says neyyattha would be such suttas where the ordinary concepts of beings etc. come in, but nītattha is where you get anicca, dukkha, anattā. That’s a very simple definition of it.


  There’s just a flux of life, a functioning, but no agent in it. But the language requires both. That is why we have to say ‘it rains’, leaving the room for someone to ask ‘what is this ‘it’?’. The fire goes out: where has it ‘gone’? The Buddha from time to time had to show the absurdity of such questions. In such contexts you come across the nītattha.


  For all practical purposes, the Buddha’s words are enough. But for those who do not practice, but who are armchair critics, there is so much contradiction in the Buddha’s words. Sometimes He says there is dukkha only, and sometimes He says you are suffering. This is also the reason why there is such a mess...



From Early Buddhist Teaching and Abhidhamma by ven. Tezaniya



  neyyattha suttas are, for example: „O monk, there is one individual, there are two individuals, there are three individuals" etc.


  nītattha sutta is „this is impermanent, this is sorrowful, this is soulless.“



From Wikipedia:



  According to Vasumitra, the Bahuśrutīyas considered the Buddha's teachings of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, anātman, and Nirvāṇa to be supramundane, while his expositions on other subjects were to be considered mundane.



From Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:


  "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
  
  "And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits &amp; results of good &amp; bad actions. There is this world &amp; the next world. There is mother &amp; father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives &amp; brahmans who, faring rightly &amp; practicing rightly, proclaim this world &amp; the next after having directly known &amp; realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
  
  "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities [in terms of the four noble truths].