I will answer that with my take on the character of symbolism as it applies to the particular dream related in this topic. I do this partly because I think that it’s the pivot of your observations and partly because I still find it tricky to interpret the manner in which you relate on said observations. There’s nothing wrong with such manner, it’s the ‘voice’ of the writer. But at times, said voice might employ free association modes that makes the sequence of interpretation by the reader a kind of patchwork.
Symbolism, by it’s very definition is of a ‘representational’ character. Thus it is not the, ‘thing-in-itself’. What that means re the dream related is that we are left with the task of discerning whether it is wholly generated by the subconscious’ apparatus, or if it’s of supraconscious or even super-physical import (remote viewing being one example of super-physical). In other words, the ‘helpers’ are either representational mirages, or they are actual entities albeit in a distant ‘locale’ that the perceiver witnesses. At this point things are fairly neat and simple, it’s either-or.
I figure you know of the Hermetic Principles. The first one, the Principle of Mentalism, states that, 'The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental". That at a foundational level all phenomena of life share a connection in the fact that they exist within the mind of ‘The All’. If such a context holds, then symbolism would be relegated to the status of, say, a photograph. It can be a good photograph, depicts things clearly and sharply, and as such still qualifies as an effective representational device. But it would no longer be considered a principle ‘generator’ of phenomena, it would only generate ‘reiterations’ of itself. Just from this we could radiate out in different considerations but here I just want to focus on the aspect of the ‘helpers’.
If the premise of ‘All is Mind’ holds, then the ‘helpers’, and for that matter all other phenomena in dreams/OBEs, are actualities, they’re ‘real’, not merely symbolic products. It would echo what you noted in an earlier post: “… for life may indeed be merely a dream.” I would only differ with you on the ‘merely’.
Symbolism is not without merit, we rely on it for many things in our existence. Language itself, perhaps the premier stream of symbolism, is what we use every day and right now in this discussion. Yet, as philosophers have pointed out and what every person has noted without necessarily being a philosopher, language is a representation. It’s been said that, ‘The map is not the territory’. At least with that we have ‘territory’ as the focus. With symbolism it could be that, ‘The symbols are not the map’. And if we regard language in that manner, well, then it could very well be, ‘Language is . . . . .’ (and you fill in whatever is appropriate for you).
So, in the ‘All is Mind’ premise, the ‘helpers’, the ‘ghost’ aspects, and yes, the Oracle, could all be real. They only seem unreal because our station in existence is maybe not equipped to perceive them. Thus, perhaps, our reliance on an ethos of representation in so many of our endeavors.
Does any of that mean that I am now free to ignore all symbols? No, if when I’m driving I see a stop sign, I will stop. I don’t think ‘All is Mind’ will regard me lesser for it.