SuStel :

The bathroom isn't a beneficiary of the action of waking or not waking.

There is something here that rubs me the wrong way (I love this
american expression !).

Way back, I believed that by saying "beneficiary of the action", we
meant that it is someone or something that actually benefits/profits
from the action.

So, someone told me (I think it was Qov), that by saying "beneficiary"
we don't mean that someone or something actually benefits, but that
someone or something (other than the direct object) is affected in any
way.

In the bathroom example, isn't the bathroom affected ? As soon as
someone (the person of the sentence) wakes up, he goes to the
bathroom..

You're right about the idea of a beneficiary, but in your original sentence (qaStaHvIS ram puchpa'vaD vembe'bogh nuv, yIHo') you are saying that waking up or not waking up directly affects the bathroom, not that there is a chain of events between waking up and affecting the bathroom. The link between the action and the beneficiary has to be closer than that.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name