Are 'elements' defined as non-suffering?

I'd like to question something from [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21381/254) without disputing it, i.e. there was a phrase it in which I found novel: > You do this by seeing that your suffering is impermanent and empty (entirely made up of non-suffering elements i.e. made of the joy of your relationship). Is it generally true that the "elements" of something are non-suffering? Is this a well-known, implicit part of (or a reason for) the doctrine of emptiness? Is this part of the meaning of "*sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā*", i.e. it's that *combinations* of elements, or *compounded* things, are *dukkhā* ... but that *elements* are not? Is it difficult to identify what's meant by an "element"? The quoted phrase (the "non-suffering elements of a relationship") seems to me to have colloquial meaning, which might be neither an Abhidhamma-like single-moment-in-time or thought-element, nor the "earth, fire, wind, etc." type of classification of element. Can you summarize how to recognize what's an "element"? Do you aim to perceive elements rather than saṅkhārās, and how do you know when/whether you're succeeding? --- I added the [tag:mahayana] tag because I think the quote is from a Mahayana tradition, but other perspectives would be welcome too.