It's not "by not discussing things in the light of His teachings" rather by discussing things in the light of His teachings is what I had in my mind. However, individual inspiration is paramount and must be followed as the occasion demands. [TNM55]
That means the individual inspiration can violate even explicit instructions of the very light it claims to represent. The point in question being - Savitri Era Religion. How does one justify its conception when He has categorically said- "I must say that it is far from my purpose to propagate any new religion, new or old, for humanity in the future. A way to be opened that is still blocked, not a religion to be founded, is my conception of the matter. It is not my object to develop any one religion or to amalgamate the older religions or to found any new religion – for any of these things would lead away from my central purpose."
A very valid question, and let me attempt to answer again by borrowing your own phrase, "the very light." How do we describe that? It's not about their writings alone. Their life history, and their dealings with the disciples and so on. On the part of the followers, what they imagine, what they see in their dreams etc. So defining that "light" is not easy; further, there is no modality to judge each other's action or experience. It's a free world. But when the followers come together and participate in some collective action, then it takes a specific form, which Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy has identified as legitimate religious practice in the famous Auroville Case.
How to communicate about it to the younger generation? Some nomenclature is needed; Savitri Era or anything. Depends upon which phrase (including, "the very light") becomes popular and endures. Sri Aurobindo with Barin (and later, Motilal) had thought of a Deva Sangha. Thus, a name for describing "Ourselves" is necessary, if not mandatory. [TNM55]