A Green Tara statue does not have to be green. A silver-colored face or a gilded body can still depict Green Tara: the figure is identified through its posture, gestures, attributes, and context as well as its name. Looking at those features together explains more than the surface color alone.
In Himalayan Buddhist traditions, Green Tara is associated with compassionate activity. Her familiar seated form combines a folded leg with a right foot reaching downward, as if stillness could become movement. Museum collections help explain that pose, but they also show why a single visual clue is never enough to identify every sculpture.
Why the right leg extends
In a common seated representation, Tara's left leg is folded while her right leg descends from the seat. A small flower support may sit beneath the extended foot. “Right” means the figure's own right, which appears on your left when you face a sculpture directly.
The Rubin Museum describes this arrangement in its fifteenth-century Tibetan Green Tara, alongside a lowered right hand and a flower held in the left.[1] In a separate discussion of a thirteenth-century sculpture, the museum interprets the extended leg as readiness to rise into action.[2] That explanation connects the pose to Green Tara's devotional association with responding to those in need.
The posture is often called lalitasana, or royal ease. LACMA uses that term for a ninth-century Green Tara from Bihar, whose pendent right leg rests on a lotus support.[3] The centuries and materials differ, yet the relationship between the seated body and the reaching foot remains recognizable.
On a small sculpture, the foot can disappear behind the pedestal's ornament in a photograph. Follow the leg from the knee toward the base before deciding that both legs are crossed. A second angle can clarify the pose more effectively than magnifying the face.
What the hands and flowers reveal
The lowered right hand often opens in a gesture of giving. A Green Tara from the Yongle period in the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art is a precise example: its catalog identifies the downward-facing open hand as varada, a gesture of bestowal, and the raised left hand as vitarka, a teaching gesture.[4] These terms describe that museum object; a tightly modeled modern hand may not preserve every detail needed for the same classification.
Flowers provide another clue. In the Nelson-Atkins sculpture, stems pass around the wrists and rise toward the shoulders. LACMA identifies the flower held by its Green Tara as a blue lotus.[3][4] The flower beside the shoulder is an attribute held by the figure, while the petal-shaped structure underneath is a seat or support. Looking for the connection between hand, stem, and blossom helps separate these two uses.
A lotus by itself cannot establish that a figure is Green Tara. The Asian Art Museum's educational guide shows both Green and White Tara holding flowers, and its discussion of Manjushri describes other objects supported on blossoms.[5] The useful evidence is the whole arrangement, including what the flower carries and how the figure sits.
Why a Green Tara sculpture may be silver or gold
Museum records offer a straightforward answer to the color question. The Rubin's fifteenth-century Green Tara combines silver and gilt copper alloy. The Nelson-Atkins example is gilded brass. LACMA's ninth-century sculpture is biotite schist.[1][3][4] “Green Tara” identifies the represented form of the deity, whereas those material descriptions identify the objects.
This distinction matters when browsing contemporary sculpture. A maker can use contrasting metal tones to emphasize a crown, face, garment, or flower without changing the product's named subject. Conversely, green accents on jewelry or a crown would not, by themselves, identify an otherwise unknown figure as Green Tara.
Material color is also a poor guide to age or provenance. The museum examples have cataloged histories and classifications. A modern silver-tone surface does not establish that it shares their alloy, place of origin, or method of manufacture.
Green Tara and White Tara
Among familiar forms, an extended right leg is a useful clue for Green Tara. White Tara is commonly recognized by additional eyes: one on the forehead and one on each palm and sole, making seven in total. The Asian Art Museum describes those eye markings alongside Green Tara's descending right leg.[5]
These are comparison points, not an exhaustive identification key. A photograph may conceal the hands or soles, and small or stylized figures can simplify details. If you cannot see an eye, that is not proof it is absent. Check the object's title and a reliable catalog entry alongside the image, especially before assigning an unfamiliar sculpture to a particular form of Tara.
Looking at the Likreat sculpture
Likreat's Green Tara Lotus Sculpture brings these questions into a contemporary design. In the main photograph, the face and body are silver-toned, while the tall crown and curling side ornaments carry a bright gold tone. Flowers rise on both sides of the shoulders. Blue, red, and green accents punctuate the crown and jewelry.
The rounded face and compact proportions give the figure a different character from the historical examples discussed here. Even so, the lowered right hand, lifted left hand, and foot projecting toward a small floral support remain visible. Look past the large curls at either side: the quieter relationship between hand, flower, and foot supplies the more useful iconographic clues.
For a closer comparison, use the front photograph to locate the hands and trace the flower stems, then use the side view to see how the foot projects beyond the seat. Describe the visible finishes as silver-tone and gold-tone unless you are consulting the product's material specifications. Colored accents alone do not identify a gemstone.
Other works in Likreat's Sculpture collection provide opportunities to compare seated figures and their attributes. The Buddhist Tradition collection places them beside related contemporary jewelry. In each case, begin with the pose and what the figure holds. That gives a specific basis for appreciation while keeping religious interpretation distinct from any promise about owning the object.
Sources
[1] Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art, Green Tara, Tibet, fifteenth century, C2005.16.45.
[2] Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art, Eight Ways Green Tara Could Inspire the Environmental Movement, 2015. Used for the museum's interpretation of the extended leg.
[3] Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The Buddhist Goddess Green Shyama Tara, ninth century, M.76.2.30.
[4] Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Green Tara, Yongle period, 2011.72.
[5] Asian Art Museum, Sacred Arts of Tibet, 2001, printed page 27. Sources accessed September 11, 2026.