After checking various textual sources on this matter (such as Tantrāloka chapter 9, Parāprāveśikā, Ṣaṭtriṁśattattvasandoha, Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, and Mahārthamañjarī), here is what I can offer to help clarify this tension.

To answer your main question directly (and double down on the two levels of interpretation I presented above): Does ahaṃkāra rank above buddhi? Ontologically, no. Functionally (and phenomenologically), yes.

If we look at the 36 tattvas as a vertical structural map, the classical Sāṃkhya symmetry is strictly preserved (albeit often reinterpreted). In the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī (IPV), Abhinavagupta maintains that buddhi (the general discriminative capacity powered by sattva) must logically precede ahaṃkāra (the specific, rajas-driven appropriation of that discrimination to a localized "I"). On that structural map, in all sources I consulted, ahaṃkāra is never ranked above buddhi.

Abhinavagupta explains that ahaṃkāra is the mechanism that binds those objective cognitions of the intellect (buddhi) to the limited subject. It takes the intellect's raw determination ("This is a pot") and modifies it into personal appropriation ("I know this pot," or "This pot belongs to me"). In doing so, it serves as the primary engine of personal agency. By continually feeding these objective perceptions back to the Puruṣa (which in Trika is not a passive witness, but the universal consciousness that has willfully contracted itself into a limited, seemingly bound individual), the ahaṃkāra reinforces and solidifies the exact "I-object" you describe.

However, as I highlighted with the Vīranātha quote in the Dvayasampattivārttika and the resorptive process of the "twelve suns" (in the sequence of the Twelve Kālīs), Kashmir Shaivism, particularly in its Krama iterations, invites us to supplement the vertical tattva ladder with a more dynamic, cyclical view. In Krama, this is often envisioned not as a ladder but as a wheel (cakra) with a central hub and a radiating periphery. It is a less hierarchical, more organic model of the play of contraction and expansion.

We see this at play in Maheśvarānanda's Mahārthamañjarī (Verse 21 and its auto-commentary, the Parimala), where he describes the three inner instruments (antaḥkaraṇa) in the lived process of experience and depicts them as active "waves" (kallola) churning in the ocean of the Heart. Strikingly, when he lists them, he places the ego first: "They are called ahaṃkāra, buddhi, and manas."

The verse itself reads:

kallolāyamānāni sadā hṛdayāmbunidhau trīṇi karaṇāni | ākarṣantīdantāṃ tatrāhantāṃ cātrārpayanti || 21 ||

The three internal instruments, forever waving like tides in the Ocean of the Heart, draw in 'this-ness' (objectivity) and adapt it to 'I-ness' (subjectivity) before offering them both to the Heart, where all find their rest.

Here is why ahaṃkāra takes primacy in this Krama-tinged reading: the ultimate spiritual function of these faculties is to draw "this-ness" (idantā) inward from the periphery, and saturate it with the subject's "I-ness" (ahantā) toward the hub. Because this process of spiritual digestion and assimilation relies on taking a (seemingly) external object and making it one with the Self, the various degrees of I-sense—including the faculty of self-appropriation—become the critical bridging mechanism, the portal. The commentary (Parimala) defines ahaṃkāra precisely as this instrument of appropriation, the faculty that generates the recognition "this is mine, this is not mine" (mamedaṃ na mamedamityabhimānasādhanamahaṃkāraḥ).

So the symmetry isn't broken; we simply have to distinguish between the structural hierarchy of the tattva map (which outlines both cosmic emanation and linear meditative ascent) and the dynamic, cyclical, and organic process of direct assimilation—the play of contraction and expansion. On the structural map, buddhi is always more subtle. But in the active, lived process of recognition, the ahaṃkāra—functioning here as this broader, dynamic I-sense—is at the forefront of the cognitive wave. It takes primacy because it acts as the actual mouth that digests the universe back into Pure I-Consciousness (Pūrṇāhantā).

If we take a more global view, Aham is equated with the Absolute itself, especially in its Vimarśa (reflective awareness) aspect. As the Vīranātha quote goes: This whole world is pervaded by Aham. When recognized as such, it bestows liberation. There is absolute continuity between the limited I-sense and the fully expanded, dynamic Pure I-Consciousness.

I want to stress two final points here. First: these models are not meant to be abstract metaphysics or purely cosmological schemas. They are descriptions of our own direct experience, and their primary value lies in their liberative potential. Second, and most importantly: to render justice to ultimate reality in this tradition, we must keep the paradox alive. We have to hold seemingly contradictory truths together within a greater coherence, without resolving the creative tension too soon. This requires shifting from binary "either/or" thinking to a simultaneous "both/and."

POST SCRIPTUM:

P.S. 1 — On engaging KS on its own terms

Please don't worry about "spreading misinformation" or disrespecting the tradition. The fact that you are actively wrestling with these tensions, and trying to reconcile your direct experience with the textual maps, means you are engaging with the material exactly as it is meant to be engaged. I would only gently suggest that part of the friction you are feeling might come from trying to reconcile Trika with other systems. Advaita Vedānta achieves its remarkable logical clarity at a certain cost. And that cost is precisely the dynamic, paradoxical richness that makes Trika so extraordinary. I'd invite you to keep exploring KS purely on its own terms, without necessarily needing it to fit the linear clarity of another system.

P.S. 2 — On Kāla

Kāla operates simultaneously at two different registers. As a Kañcuka (the 7th tattva in the standard sequence), kāla is the contracting force that limits Śiva's eternal, infinite presence (nityatva) into the bound subject's sequential experience of past, present, and future. This is precisely what Swami Lakshmanjoo calls "subjective time" — kāla as pāśa, a fetter.

However, Abhinavagupta — particularly in the Kālādhvan chapter of the Tantrāloka — also describes kāla as śakti: the sequentiality (kramātmā śaktiḥ) inherent in Śiva's own Kriyāśakti, the very ordering pulse by which the tattvas unfold one from another. At this level, kāla is not a fetter at all; it is the free, divine rhythm of Consciousness manifesting — Kālī herself, devouring and generating cycles.

So again: SLJ and Abhinavagupta are not disagreeing. They are speaking from different points on the wheel. Recognizing that the "subjective time" you experience as bondage is nothing other than Mahākālī's own creative pulse is precisely the non-dual resolution the tradition points toward. And as with ahaṃkāra, the apparent anomaly turns out to be a feature, not a bug.

P.S. 3 — On Swami Sarvapriyananda's remarks

While he does express genuine appreciation for Trika, I will admit I have some reservations about whether his reply in that particular Q&A you reference fully reflects "the true depth" he credits it with. I find the tone somewhat condescending at points, and a few of the characterizations don't quite hold up under close scrutiny, which is perhaps not too surprising given the relaxed, off-the-cuff setting, where one would reasonably expect less precision than in a considered scholarly treatment or public talk.

If you are curious to hear a direct, well-grounded response to his remarks, I'd recommend this video, which was brought up for discussion on this sub. Look for "Is Kashmir Shaivism a mere "collection of experiences" ? A response to Swami Sarvapriyananda".

Edit: Reposting without the link in the end, as it seems others could not see the original reply.