and his affinity for Plutonic philosophy only goes so far (arguably) because uses him more selectively, picking and choosing elements of a more interconnected system (although this does not mean that he had no deference for Plato though).

If I had one gripe with Plotinus, it's that he seems like an amalgamation of greater thinkers (Aristotle, Plato, etc) at the end of their relevancy.

From the composition of Enneads, he is a very sharp thinker. But I think he may have relied on Platonic forms and other fundamentals (at the time) that he could well have done without. His hypostases for example could well have benefited without the "crutch" of the theory of forms.

But that's just my own opinion though. Needless to say, he is still a very interesting philosopher in his own right.

No, in fact he had enormous respect for Plato.
Although we consider Plotinus to be the father of Neo-Platonism, he never considered himself as such. Rather, he thought of himself as purely a Platonist, faithfully carrying on the work of Plato. In fact, Plato is so central to Plotinus' that he refers to him simply as "he" in the Enneads.
Remiscent of the way St Thomas Aquinas refers to Aristotle simply as "The Philosopher".

I'm not sure why it should be a gripe.
Plato took the philosophy of Socrates and expanded/developed it, Aristotle did the same with Plato (in fact opposing much of his philosophy as well).
There is a progression where these men see themselves as direct heirs to those who come before them. The problem we have with Plotinus us we know little of the philosophy of the Middle Platonists. And even more interesting would be to know the thoughts of Amonnius Saccas, the mentor of Plotinus. How much he owes to him, and how much is original to Plotinus is a matter of speculation.

Interesting, in what sense?
Can you expand on this? I assume you are a Nominalist rather than a Realist?

Indeed, probably the last great original thinker of antiquity.

Which is why I stated that though Plotinus was selective, he still had a degree of deference for him. No one said he didn't.

As far as Plotinus regarded purely as a Platonist, I would only agree only so far as it takes into account Plontinus and his locus around the middle platonic tradition. The second-third centuries C.E. ushers a novel Platonic hermeneutic tradition, of course, in the form of Neo-Platonism. But there is more to it than that (i.e. rejection of theurgy, etc.) I would think if we really examined it more thoroughly. But do you really think Plontinus is faithfully carrying on the work of Plato?

Timaeus? Maybe in his own mind and in his own way perhaps. More could be said on that I would think than a continuation of Platonism though.

But you are quite right... Aristotle indeed did the same with Plato. One need only read the first few pages Aristotle's Metaphysics to figure on expanded theories and knowledge. In Metaphysics Alpha, he praises men like Hesiod for bascally thinking outside the box. Even in book Zeta 7-8 particularly emphasize Platonic misgivings on generation.

Amonnius Saccas is an interesting subject though, isn't he?

He may have been influenced by Numenius. But that seems to be the root of the problem though. Numenicus was very secretive and I suppose that Amonnius Saccus inherited the will to not publish any writings. Neat thing is that Plotinus seems to be much like his teacher (can we call A. Saccus a mentor based on such little information?).

Even Herennicus and Origen were intensely secretive as well. Thank god for Porphyry to break the silent cycle.

Actually, I'm an empirically driven rationalist with nihilistic tendancies. LOL!

In the interest of writing space and carpel tunnel syndrome, you would have to be more specific in terms of a want for elaboration on.

Sadly, you are probably right.

Plotinus (205-270) ascetic popular lecturer on Neoplatonism. Author of Enneads. Not Christian but heavily influenced early Christian theology.

And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An essential is not mixed. Or the intrusion of anything alien? If it did, it would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain must be equally far from it. And Grief - how or for what could it grieve? Whatever possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase bring joy, where nothing, not even anything good, can accrue? What such an Existent is, is unchangeable. (my bolds)

I guess I am most interested in Plotinus as a religious philosopher.
In particular his notion of the "world" as an emanation ex deo ("out of god") of the One as opposed to the traditional Christian notion of creation ex nihilo ("out of nothing") by God.

Interesting! In a way, the nothing is also a one, because it's singular.

I don't think this kind of apophatic theology was particularly characteristic of Plotinus though. He was much more a rationalist in his approach. I think the apophatic approach really can be traced back to the elusive figure known as 'pseudo-Dionysius', author of The Celestial Heirarchy, and also to the Orthodox monastic tradition (in addition, of course, to the Indian tradition to which you make reference.)

Plotinus advocated negative theology in his strand of Neoplatonism (although he may have had precursors in Neopythagoreanism and Middle Platonism). In his writings he identifies the Good of the Republic (as the cause of the other Forms) with the One of the first hypothesis of the second part of the Parmenides (137c-142a), there concluded to be neither the object of knowledge, opinion or perception. In the Enneads