It seems to me that I ought to mention a bit of my background. I was at two very great Litvak yeshivas that walk in the path of the Gra: The first was Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway for what I think was 3.5 years. The second year was tracate Chulin. The third was tractate  Ketuboth. Then for half that year was tractate Yevamot. Then I was at the Mir in NY also for about three years and then Israel. During the time I preparing for Israel, I got interested in Rav Nahman of Breslov. And during that first period in Israel, I was pretty much going with the path of Rav Nahman--that is a lot of going out into the forests doing "hitbodadut" [that is private prayer and talking with God in one's own language.].  Looking back on it all it seems to me that I would have done better to stick with the straight Torah approach of the Mir and the Litvak yeshiva, and tried to combine that with the great advice and ideas of Rav Nahman. 

That is to say,- I think it would have been better to try to stick with the great aspects of the path of the Gra--in terms of learning Torah and Musar, and to combine that with the good ideas of Rav Nahman. 

There is a tendency with Breslov to get off the track of learning Torah and straight Torah. Not that this was any fault of Rav Nahman himself, but there does seem to be that sort of danger. The mistake is understandable since the actual letter of excommunication of the Gra is not well known and who it applied to. What I suggest is that letter of excommunication is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you see the actual language of that letter.  I think the actual herem is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman.