The word cit is one of the key terms of Indian philosophy as well as of the Trika-system. In the Advaita Vedānta system of Śaṅkara (Śānta Brahmavāda) cit denotes the Divine Absolute (Brahman). Contrary to Śaṅkara’s view of cit as inactive (niṣkriya) pure light (prakāśa), non-dualistic Kashmir Śaivism (īśvarādvayavāda) stresses the Śakti-dimension of the Highest Reality (anuttara), its dynamism and activity (kartṛtva). For the Śaivites cit is not only pure light, but is simultaneously prakāśa and vimarśa, the "seeing" or cognizing of this light, symbolized by the non-separated yet differentiated pair "Śiva" and "Śakti." The highest Śakti (parāśakti, the supreme kundalinī) itself is citi (fem. of cit), the creative cause of the world: "The absolute citi is the cause of the emergence of the universe" (Pratyabhijm-hṛdaya, sūtra 1). Here we specifically notice that Trika does not speak of the duality of Śiva as cit or prakāśa and Śakti as vimarśa, but rather that Śakti is identified with cit and vimarśa, possibly in an intentional contrast to the immobile, inactive cit/Brahman of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta. Abhinavagupta therefore says at the beginning of his Parātriśikāvivarana: "It is this supreme saṁvit (parā saṁvit) which is said to be the goddess (devī)."  This is also clarified by Kṣemarāja at the beginning of his Parāprāveśika (=PP):
We adore saṁvit, which flashes forth (sphurantīm) in the form of the original Highest Śakti (parāśakti), the heart of the Highest Lord, she who consists of the world and transcends it. Here [in Trika] the Highest Lord is of the nature of light (prakāśātmā) and the light is of the nature of vimarśa. Vimarśa is the flashing forth (visphuraṇam), which is the uncreated "I" (akṛtrima-aham) in the form of the universe, of the light of  the universe and of the dissolution of the universe. If it would be without vimarśa, then it would be without Lord, and lifeless (jaḍa). And that is, truly, vimarśa: cit, caitanya, the highest word (parāvāk), which arises from its own joy (rasa), autonomy (svātantrya), the original sovereignty (aiśvarya) of the highest Self (paramātman), agency (kartṛtvam), flashing forth (sphurattā), essence (sāra), heart (hṛdayam), vibration (spanda) — with these and other words is vimarśa proclaimed (udghoṣyate) in the Āgamas. 
At the same time, Abhinavagupta identifies cit with the Self, one’s innermost nature:
The Self (ātman), i.e. one’s own nature (svabhāua), which is cit [a]. — Tantraloka 5.127ab
Usually cit is translated in English as "consciousness" or "pure consciousness," "pure divine consciousness," or "absolute consciousness."  Torella generally translates cit or citi with just "consciousness" (cf. Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā I. 3.7 k; I. 5.10 v, I. 5.13 k; passim), in the same way as do Dyczkowski  and others.
Let us have a closer look at a crucial passage within which Utpaladeva characterizes citi:
(13) Citi has as its essential nature (ātma) reflective awareness (pratyavamarśa), the supreme word (parāvāk) arising from its own joy (svarasodītā).  It is freedom (svātantrya) in the eminent (mukhya) sense, the sovereignty (aiśvaryam) of the supreme Self (paramātman).(14) It is the luminous vibrating (sphurattā), the great being (mahāsatta) unmodified by space and time; it is that which is said to be the heart (hṛdayam) of the supreme Lord, insofar as it is his essence (sāra). — Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā I. 5.13-14 k 
In this important passage, citi is equated with parāvāk.  Abhinavagupta identifies the "supreme word" (parāvāk) with the supreme Goddess of Trika, Parā.  He characterizes it at the beginning of Parātriśikāvivarana, and so we receive a conception of citi (or saṁvit, or anuttara), alongside the characterization by Utpaladeva , wherein parāvāk shows a complete absence of difference, abiding in the "supreme I" (paramāham) beyond time and space.  It is the "non-dual saṁvit in all sakala-perceivers" (sakalapramūtṛsarhvidadvayamayī), that is, it is even present at the lowest of the seven levels of perception, in the sakala-state, in the realm of duality between objects and subjects of our everyday cognition — but usually we remain unaware of it. Abhinavagupta continues, stating  that parāvāk is the nature (svabhāva) of the highest reality (paramārtha).  He characterizes it as "unconventional" (asāṁ ketika) and "uncreated" or "not made" (akṛtaka);  it vibrates/ flashes (sphurati), resting in the light (prakāśa) of its own self, its own wonder (svacamatkṛti). 
In his translation, Torella renders citi (fem. form of cit) with the word "consciousness,"  in accord with the standard relation between the Sanskrit term cit and the English term "consciousness," based on a long translation-history in regard  to cit. Anyhow, in my opinion, it is a very strong interpretative intervention, by which the whole passage — including the auto-commentary (vṛtti) — acquires a different meaning.
This is so because it is clear (especially from verse 14, but also from other texts like PP) that cit or citi — as well as hṛdayam, sūra, sphurattā, spanda, ūrmi, etc. — is one of the names of Śakti, and is identified with Her.  The crucial question is this: is the word "consciousness" able to express the dimensions of Śakti (ku ṇḍalinī), its divine, cosmic, human wholeness according to Tāntric sources? Can the term "consciousness" express that citi — Śakti — is the ground and root of consciousness, and the basis of all life, "the life of all living beings" (sarvajīvatāmjīvanaikarūpam)? 
I am fully aware of the weight of the standardized translation-relation between cit and "consciousness," not only in view of the Trika texts, but of Indian philosophy in general, and to jeopardize this relation could seem as an act of academic Quixotism.
However, any translation as "consciousness" in its usual modern usage is reductive: it confines cit (a) to humans, and (b) to the lower level of cit in humans — in terms of the tradition to the contracted, limited condition of cit.  Its integral, diviner cosmic-human or "cosmotheandric" (Raimon Panikkar )  dimension gets lost.  From this translation/interpretation arises the danger of interpreting the complex multidimensionality of the non-dualistic world-view of the Kashmir Śaivites — as for example in the case of an early work of Mark Dyczkowski — merely in the reductive framework of a "psychology of absolute consciousness."  This holds also true if the word "consciousness" is qualified by adjectives like "pure," "absolute" or "divine," since the word "consciousness" remains always the central term.
Already in 1922, John Woodroffe had directed our attention to the problem of the translation of cit into any European language:
The fundamental peculiarity of the Advaita Vedanta and therefore of its Śākta form, is the distinction which it draws between Mind and Consciousness in the sense of Cit; a word for which there is no exact equivalent in any European Language. 
He characterises cit as the
[. . .] common source and basis of both Mind and Matter.Chit is the infinite Whole (Pūrna) in which all that is finite, whether as Mind ot Matter, is. This is the Supreme Infinite Experience, free of all finitization which is Pure Spirit as distinguished from Mind and Body.