In Jain understanding, yes, there is a difference.

• A Tirthankar’s walking may cause very subtle himsa to ekindriya jivas in the physical sense, because worldly activity cannot be completely free from injury.
• But a Tirthankar has no raga-dvesha, no attachment, and no negligent intention. So there is no karmic bondage like in ordinary beings.

For the second part:

• A Tirthankar does teach ahimsa and truth.
• But not stopping every panchendriya jeev by force is not the same as approving violence.
• In Jain dharma, himsa is chiefly bound to intention, negligence, and participation through mind, speech, or body.
• A Tirthankar does not become responsible for another being’s violence just because he did not physically intervene in every case.

So the correct understanding is:

1. Physical injury without attachment and intention is not the same as sinful himsa in the Jain karmic sense.
2. Allowing others to act according to their own karma is different from encouraging or intending violence.
3. A Tirthankar’s role is to preach the path of ahimsa, not to forcibly control every being.

So your statement is partly right, but it needs refinement:

• Yes, even saintly movement may involve unavoidable subtle injury.
• No, it does not mean the Tirthankar is morally equal to one who commits violence through passion, negligence, or approval.

In Jain terms, bhav-himsa and dravya-himsa are not the same. The Tirthankar is beyond bhav-himsa.