This issue of K and Bohm dialogue has come up already. The people interested in K are not necessarily interested in Bohmian dialogue and vice versa. For me Bohmian dialogue stems from K or, put differently, K is the background to Bohmian dialogue. On the other hand, in K groups what tends to happen is that K and the understanding of his teachings takes precedence over people's own exploration of their lives. The quality of 'thinking together', the art of it, is therefore lost to a great extent because the thinking proceeds from an external referent which people appear to to their best to approximate, whereas the point is to take that 'mirror' as a way to see oneself, the mirror being only a means and not an end. This is where, as I understand it, Bohmian dialogue comes in, namely as a way for us to undertake our own journey of self-knowing by talking things over together in a group setting. The context is deliberately enlarged to reflect the prevalent fragmentation by means of a representative cross-section of society. So it takes a double challenge on board, namely that we are meeting as human beings (K would always emphasize this point in his talks and dialogues) concerned with their lives and as members of the larger community and its broader relational challenges. It is ultimately about whether we can become aware of ourselves and our underlying universality as human beings.
What I come up with in relation to this question is that, while the exposure to K's teachings seems to me fundamental, the key aspect is the dialogue. If the dialogue is undertaken from the broader perspective of Bohm's 'philosophy', then there is already a guarantee that the teachings are somewhat implicit, for Bohm starts from that basis. So while I would point this out and therefore underlie the importance of K's teachings in this endeavor, I would not put the teachings in first place but rather bring them in on demand, i.e. as a way to throw further light on the issues that we would be addressing. This is likely to work best with people already familiar with the teachings who now want to undertake an investigation of their own. For those who would not know about K or have any significant understanding, I would certainly want to refer them to his work
.... the fact is that we are all in the same boat and facing exactly the same challenges as human beings
I feel that the real issue of dialogue is the same as that of the teachings. At times K would ask people what they would do, how they would go about these questions if he were not there. That is what Bohm tried to answer in his dialogue proposal. He considered that while K was alive the communication took place between him as the source of truth and the individual. When the source is gone, what is left? A bunch of scattered individuals, each apparently holding his own precious little bit of truth in the privacy of his being and often hesitant to share it with others for fear of losing its very special quality. Whereas the fact is that we are all in the same boat and facing exactly the same challenges as human beings. This is really the starting point for such an exploration.