Is this the same nun in these sutta references?

From sutta SA 2.218: > The renunciant Gotama is staying at Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in the > Anāthapiṇḍika Park. And there is the **nun Selā** who took her robes and > her begging bowl and entered Sāvatthī to beg for food. Having finished > her meal, she cleaned her bowl, gathered her seat and has gone to the > Andhavana forest. I shall disturb her!” Having thought this he changed > into a young man, approached her and spoke a verse: > > “Who is it that created beings, > by whom were they made? > Why are they called beings, > from where do they arise?” > > That time the **nun Selā**, having heard the verse thought: “Who is this? > What a cheat! Is he a human or a non-human being?” She entered > concentration and recognized he was King Māra. She answered with a > verse: > > “Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’, > saying and believing they actually exist as substantial entities. > Conventional, empty they are but compounded entities > there are in fact no ‘beings.’ > Like when causes and various conditions > converge and yield the use of a ‘chariot’. > From sutta SN 5.10: > Then Māra the Wicked, wanting to make the **nun Vajirā** feel fear, > terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make her fall away from immersion, > went up to her and addressed her in verse: > > “Who created this sentient being? > Where is its maker? > Where has the being arisen? > And where does it cease?” > > Then the nun **Vajirā** thought, “Who’s speaking this verse, a human or a > non-human?” > > Then she thought, “This is Māra the Wicked, wanting to make me feel > fear, terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make me fall away from > immersion!” > > Then **Vajirā**, knowing that this was Māra the Wicked, replied to him in > verse: > > “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? > Māra, is this your theory? > This is just a pile of conditions, > you won’t find a sentient being here. > > When the parts are assembled > we use the word ‘chariot’. > So too, when the aggregates are present > ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. And from Mil 3.1.1: > Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of “chariot.” > And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned > me about— The thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and > the five constituent elements of being—that I come under the generally > understood term, the designation in common use, of “Nāgasena.” For it > was said, Sire, by our **Sister Vajirā** in the presence of the Blessed > One: > > “Just as it is by the condition precedent > Of the co-existence of its various parts > That the word ‘chariot’ is used, > Just so is it that when the Skandhas > Are there we talk of a ‘being.’” > > Most wonderful, Nāgasena, and most strange. Well has the puzzle put > to you, most difficult though it was, been solved. Were the Buddha > himself here he would approve your answer. Well done, well done, > Nāgasena! ---------- Are these verses about the same nun? Is there anything more known about her?