Describing reality, in the best case scenario, provides sign posts to the path of a truth to be experienced, but can't walk it for you:
there is no one to whom the bodily sensations could be reported to.
There's no way you will ever truly
know what the hell that means without experiencing it -- but him saying this could spark you to finding it out for yourself. It could be "understood" with a nice concept wrapped around it, you could have all the facts possible, but it would not be truly known. Thus the heart of the 'where science ends.'
Art is self expression through a medium of choice. It depends on what level you are speaking on, but it too can express one's internal experience- it may guide you to an experience yourself (which will be your own), just as in words and in fact words can be art. Still, they are not the experience itself.
Jared said it well. There's no inherent meaning/intention in describing reality. For you there is some connection between it and not being alone or you would not have voiced it. One could do so purely as an act of teaching/compassion, to inspire you to a direction, or for no reason at all. Nothing in your experience has meaning other than that which you give it.
You can learn everything about what an orange is made of, but you will never truly know what an orange tastes like unless you bite into it yourself. May not be able to bite the orange of being a cat, but things like direct experience in the absence of ego, true peace / indifference etc are ultimately oranges you have to eat to ever really know.