Detachment : What are we really parting from? I was thinking about detachment today and this thought occurred in my mind...

We like what we see,hear,touch,smell,taste &amp; think. This liking turns into attachment over time and this is the attachment we talk about when we say "Detachment".

And we say that one who practice the path should part from these worldly temptations and he should try to realize and part from those binds.

But what are we truly attached to,i mean when we say attachment we commonly blame the things that we think are tasty,nice,comforting,satisfying and etc.
But when i thought of this i felt that we are not attached to the source of these attachments.

The way i see it we are attached to the attachment, let me simplify...


  I think we are not directly attached to the taste of chocolate, i feel
  we are actually attached to the attachment that we once made when we
  tasted it for the first time. I think we are keeping that in mind and
  when we see chocolate again the older attachment comes and we gladly
  accept chocolate because we want what we once felt, i think this is
  why we always compare our meals even though we do not have a clue what
  we are comparing it with. As the taste of chocolate makes us live that
  moment again we love chocolate, because it is the source of that
  feeling that we hold dear.




After thinking this i felt that i should focus on what is the true source of attachment, 
is it taste of chocolate or the fact i once loved the taste of chocolate? which one am i truly attached to, 
is it a moment that i had which i want to live again and again or is it just plain taste?
Attachment (and the other things you mention) are described among the Twelve Nidānas.

For example chocolate exists as:


Name ("chocolate") and Form (the form of chocolate)
Sensuality (sight, taste, touch, smell, idea)
Contact (between our consciousness, our senses, and chocolate's form)
Desire
Attachment
Memories


You're right if you're saying that the specific/single answer is difficult to discern. I think that's because:


Attachment isn't to a single thing
Attachment doesn't have a single cause


When I say "not a single thing" I mean that chocolate exists as name, form, sensual contact, mindfulness (or the lack of it), sensual desire, memory and other fabrications; it's not a single thing.

When I say "doesn't have a single cause" I mean that attachment depends on a lot of conditions: sensuality, desire, form, contact, and fabrication.

Instead of "single cause" I think it's better to understand it as "dependent co-arising" ... e.g. "attachment to chocolate arises with (sensuality, desire, memory, etc.)".

It might be better to see the whole chain as a single system rather than as separate bits.

Your question is a bit like asking, "What is the 'chariot' exactly? Is it the wheels, the yoke, the thing it carries, or its destination?" To understand it correctly, it's kind of all of these.

So perhaps you can discern attachment as an active component within the whole: e.g. it's something which affects the 'way' in which people travel.



Also if I look at some of the various definitions of Kleshas (defilements) then sometimes it's listed and sometimes it's not. If the list is detailed then it's a 'separate thing', if it's a shorter list then I think it's just included (presumably along with Taṇhā/craving) in the category of Lobha/desire.